Case: Thakur Manmohan Deo And Another Vs. The State Of Bihar And Others.(And Connected Appeal)

of S. 32. The short question before us is - are Government ghatwalis excluded from the ambit of the Act by reason of sub-s. (4) of S. 32? Let us assume without deciding, that sub-s. (4) does not apply to ghatwali tenures. What is the result? Section 32, merely provides for the manner of payment of compensation. If sub-s. (4) does not apply, the payment of compensation will have to be made in accordance with sub-s. (1) of S. 32 which says :"S. 32(1). When the time within which appeals under section 27 may be made in respect of any entry in or omission from a Compensation Assessment-roll has expired or where any such appeal has been made under that section and the same has been disposed of, the Compensation Officer shall proceed to make payment, in the manner provided in this section, to the proprietors, tenure-holders and other persons who are shown in such Compensation Assessment-roll as finally published under Section 28 to be entitled to compensation, of the compensation payable to them in terms of the said roll after deducting from the amount of any compensation so payable any amount which has been ordered by the Collector under clause (c) of Section 4 or under any other section to be so deducted. Therefore, the result is not that Government ghatwalis will go out of the Act, because sub-s. (4) does not apply. The result only is that the holders of such tenures will be paid compensation in a different manner. What rights others having a proprietary interest in a ghatwali tenure have against the compensation money does not fall for decision here. 10. Therefore, we are of the view that neither S. 23(1) (f) nor S. 32(4) have the necessary and inevitable result contended for by the appellants, viz., that the appellants ghatwali tenures must be excluded from the operation of the Act even though the definition clauses expressly include them. 11. This brings us to the second point urged before us. That point can be disposed of very shortly. It is contended that if the provisions of the Act apply to Government ghatwalis, then the Act falls outside the legislative competence of the State Legislature inasmuch as the Act then becomes legislation with regard to items 1 and 2 of the Union List. These two items are -"1. Defence of India and every part thereof including preparation for defence and all such acts as may be conductive in times of war to its prosecution and after its termination to effective demobilisation. 2. Naval, military and air forces; any other armed forces of the Union. It is, we think, quite obvious that the Act has no connection whatsoever with the defence of India or the armed forces of the Union.As Lord Sumner had pointed out as far back as 1923, though ghatwali duties might be divided into police duties and quasi-military duties, both classes had lost their importance and the latter were rarely if ever demanded. This Court had observed in 1952 SCR 889 : (AIR 1952 SC 252 ) :"The pith and substance of the legislation, however, in my opinion is the transference of ownership of estates to the State Government and falls within the ambit of legislative head entry 36 of List II. There is no scheme of land reform within the framework of the statute except that a pious hope in expressed that the commission may produce one. The Bihar Legislature was certainly competent to make the law on the subject of transference of estates and the Act as regards such transfers it constitutional. (per Mahajan, J. at p. 926 of the report) (of SCR : at p. 270 of AIR). We think that in pith and substance the legislation was covered by item 36 of List II (as it then stood) and it has no relation to items 1 and 2 of List I. 12. Now, as to the last argument founded on Regulation XXIX of 1814.In our view the Act in pith and substance related to acquisition of property and consequently no question of the repeal of Regulation XXIX of 1914 arose; nor is it necessary to consider the principle that a special law relating to special tenures is not affected by a subsequent general law of land reforms. Such a principle has no application in the present case. The Act expressly includes all ghatwali tenures within its ambit and provides for the vesting of all rights therein absolutely in the State of Bihar on the issue of a notification under S. 3 and under S. 4 certain consequences ensue on the issue of such a notification notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force.It is worthy of note that the Bengal Permanent Settlement Regulation, 1793 (Bengal Regulation I of 1793), did not stand in the way of acquisition of other permanently settled estates, and it is difficult to see how Regulation XXIX of 1814 can stand in the way of acquisition of ghatwali tenures. The point is really covered by the decision of this Court in Suriya Pal Singh v. State of U. P., 1951 SCR 1056 at pp. 1078-79 : (AIR 1952 SC 252 (306) at p. 313), where it was observed :"The Crown cannot deprive a legislature of its legislative authority by the mere fact that in the exercise of its prerogative it makes a grant of land within the territory over which such legislative authority exists and no court can annual the enactment of a legislative body acting within the legitimate scope of its sovereign competence. If, therefore, it be found that the subject of a Crown grant is within the competence of a provincial legislature, nothing can prevent that legislature from legislating about it, unless the Constitution Act itself expressly prohibits legislation on the subject either absolutely or conditionally. 13. For the reasons given above, we hold that none of t he three points urged on behalf of the appellants has any substance.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]7. Where a statute says in express terms that the expression tenure includes a ghatwali tenure and the expression tenure-holder includes a ghatwal and the successors-in-interest of a ghatwal, there must be compelling reasons to cut down the amplitude of the two expressions. The Bihar legislature must have been aware of the distinction between Government ghatwalis and zamindari ghatwalis and if the intention was to exclude Government ghatwalis, nothing could have been easier than to say in the two definition clauses that they did not include Government ghatwalis. On the contrary, the legislature made no distinction between Government ghatwalis and zamindari ghatwalis but included all ghatwali tenures within the definition clauses. There are no restrictive words in the definition claused and we see no reasons why any restriction should be read into them. It is worthy of note that the two definition clauses first state in the substantive part what the general meaning of the two expressions is, and then say that the expressions shall inter alia include a ghatwali tenure and a ghatwal and the successors-in-interest of a ghatwal. Thus, the two definition clauses are artificially extended so as to include all ghatwali tenures and all ghatwals and their successors-in-interest, irrespective of any consideration as to whether they come within the general meaning state in the substantive part of the two clauses. Such artificial extension of the two definition clauses is also apparent from sub-cl. (v) of cl. (r) and sub-cl. (iii) of cl. (q). Sub-clause (iii) of cl. (q) excludes certain tenures from the definition clause which would otherwise come within the general meaning of the expression tenure, and sub-cl. (v) of cl. (r) extends the expression tenure holder to guardians, committees and curators. When we are dealing with an artificial definition of this kind which states "means and shall include etc., there is no room for an argument that even though the definition expressly states that something is included within a particular expression, it must be excluded by reason of its now coming within the general meaning of that expressionIt is enough to point out that assuming that the argument of the appellants is correct and cl .(f) of S. 23(1) does not apply, it does not necessarily follow that the appellants ghatwali tenures cannot be acquired by the State Government under S. 3 of the Act. Section 23(1) (f) provides only for the deduction of a particular item from the gross asset of the tenure-holder for the purpose of computing the net income. Even if cl. (f) does not apply, the statute provides for other deductions mentioned in clauses (a) to (e). Those clauses indisputably apply to a ghatwali tenure and a Compensation Assessment-roll can be prepared on their basis. It would not be correct to say that because a particular item of deduction does not apply in the case of a Government ghatwali, such ghatwali tenure must be excluded from the ambit of the Act; such a view will be inconsistent with the scheme of S23. The scheme of S. 23 is that certain deductions have to be made to compute the net income; some of the items may apply in one case and some may not apply. The section does not contemplate that all the items must apply in the case of each and every proprietor or tenure-holderTherefore, the result is not that Government ghatwalis will go out of the Act, because sub-s. (4) does not apply. The result only is that the holders of such tenures will be paid compensation in a different manner. What rights others having a proprietary interest in a ghatwali tenure have against the compensation money does not fall for decision here10. Therefore, we are of the view that neither S. 23(1) (f) nor S. 32(4) have the necessary and inevitable result contended for by the appellants, viz., that the appellants ghatwali tenures must be excluded from the operation of the Act even though the definition clauses expressly include themIt is, we think, quite obvious that the Act has no connection whatsoever with the defence of India or the armed forces of the Union.As Lord Sumner had pointed out as far back as 1923, though ghatwali duties might be divided into police duties and quasi-military duties, both classes had lost their importance and the latter were rarely if ever demanded12. Now, as to the last argument founded on Regulation XXIX of 1814.In our view the Act in pith and substance related to acquisition of property and consequently no question of the repeal of Regulation XXIX of 1914 arose; nor is it necessary to consider the principle that a special law relating to special tenures is not affected by a subsequent general law of land reforms. Such a principle has no application in the present case. The Act expressly includes all ghatwali tenures within its ambit and provides for the vesting of all rights therein absolutely in the State of Bihar on the issue of a notification under S. 3 and under S. 4 certain consequences ensue on the issue of such a notification notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force.It is worthy of note that the Bengal Permanent Settlement Regulation, 1793 (Bengal Regulation I of 1793), did not stand in the way of acquisition of other permanently settled estates, and it is difficult to see how Regulation XXIX of 1814 can stand in the way of acquisition of ghatwali tenuresFor the reasons given above, we hold that none of t he three points urged on behalf of the appellants has any substance.