Case: Shrishailagouda and Others Etc Vs. Gurusangappa Ramasomappa Desai and Another

prescribed authority for regrant of the aforesaid watan lands to them under section 4 of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner, Jamkhandi, held that the respondent was the holder of the watan and as such was entitled to an order of regrant. On appeal preferred by the appellants the Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur, affirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum, dismissed the appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner filed by the appellants. The Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal. Belgaum Bench, allowed the revision application made by the appellants setting aside the order of regrant in favour of the respondent. The High Court of Mysore at Bangalore allowed the writ petitions made by the respondent challenging the order of the Revenue Tribunal and restored the order of regrant in his favour.8. On the facts found by the authorities under the 1950 Act except the Revenue Tribunal, the respondent would be clearly entitled to the watan lands being regranted to hi m under section 4 of the Act. All the authorities including the Revenue Tribunal held that the appellants were strangers to the watan and therefore could not ask for an order under section 4 in their favour; the appellants not having challenged this finding it has become final. The Revenue Tribunal however was of the view that under the Sanad issued in favour of the respondents ancestor what was granted was only the royal share of the revenue, it was not a grant of the soil, and that a s such the lands in question could not be regranted to the respondent under section 4. The facts stated earlier make it clear that the Sanad was granted on the basis that there was a watan and that the respondents ancestor Bhimrao to whom the San ad was granted was the holder of the watan. The Sanad of 1872 granted only the right to hold the watan lands free from full assessment. The view taken by the Revenue Tribunal appears to be based on a judgment of the Bombay High Court, Ramasomappa Bhimrao Desai v. The Secretary of State for India in Council.(1) disposing of an appeal that arose from a suit instituted in 1929 by the respondents father Ramasomappa against the Secretary of State for India in-Council in 1929. According to the Tribunal the Bombay High Court had held in that case that the grant to the respondents ancestor did not include the right to the soil. It may be necessary here to state a few facts upon which Ramasomappas suit was instituted. Bhimrao to whom the Sanad was given adopted Ramasomappa in 1909. After Bhimraos death in 1918. Government refused to recognise Ramasomappas adoption. He then applied to Government for the grant of ex post facto sanction to his adoption by Bhimrao and, alternatively, prayed that in case the sanction was not given, then the watan might be resumed by the levy of full assessment on the lands and he should not be evicted therefrom. Both these requests were turned down and the Government passed orders for resuming possession of the lands. Ramasomappa then brought the suit against the Secretary of State for a declaration that the orders passed by Government for resumption of possession of the watan lands were illegal . The trial court having dismissed the suit Ramasomappa came up in appeal to the Bombay High Court. The question whether the original grant to the respondents ancestor was of the soil or it was only a right to the royal share of the revenue d id not arise for consideration in Ramasomappa v. Secretary of State (supra). The Bombay High Court allowed Ramasomappas appeal holding that the Sanad of 1872 did not purport to be a grant of the right to occupy the soil, it had only reference to and w as a grant of the right to hold the lands free from full assessment, and that if any of the conditions of the grant, namely the condition of remaining faithful to Government or the condition of paying a fixed duty was broken, then Government was only entitled to claim full assessment on the lands but any right of occupation which the holder of the watan possessed apart from the Sanad would remain untouched. The Tribunals reading of the judgment in Ramasomappas case does not therefore seem to be correct. The judgment under appeal before us points out that the decision in Ramasomappa v. Secretary of State (supra) has no bearing on the issue involved in the instant case.9. Counsel for the appellants also relied on the decision in 39 Bombay Law Reporter 851 in support of the appeal but, for the reasons stated above, we do not think Ramasomappas case at all helps him. The only other ground urged was that an application made on behalf of the respondent in 1947 (when he was a minor) under section 10 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act (Act III of 1874) having been rejected, the respondents right to a regrant of the watan lands was extinguished. Section 10 empowered the Collector to issue a certificate on the basis of which the respondent could bring an action against the appellants for recovery of possession of the lands. The point was argued before the Deputy Commissioner in the present proceedings who held that the rejection of the application d id not take away the right of the watandar to ask for a regrant of the watan lands under section 4 of the 1950 Act. From the judgment of the High Court it does not appear the point was argued there, and normally the appellants should not be all owed to take the point in this Court. In any case it seems to us clear that the rejection of the application under section 10 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 is not a matter relevant to the issue whether the respondent is entitled to a re grant of the watan lands under section 4 of the 1950 Act.10.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]The facts stated earlier make it clear that the Sanad was granted on the basis that there was a watan and that the respondents ancestor Bhimrao to whom the San ad was granted was the holder of the watan. The Sanad of 1872 granted only the right to hold the watan lands free from full assessment. The view taken by the Revenue Tribunal appears to be based on a judgment of the Bombay High Court, Ramasomappa Bhimrao Desai v. The Secretary of State for India in Council.(1) disposing of an appeal that arose from a suit instituted in 1929 by the respondents father Ramasomappa against the Secretary of State for India in-Council in 1929. According to the Tribunal the Bombay High Court had held in that case that the grant to the respondents ancestor did not include the right to the soil. It may be necessary here to state a few facts upon which Ramasomappas suit was instituted. Bhimrao to whom the Sanad was given adopted Ramasomappa in 1909. After Bhimraos death in 1918. Government refused to recognise Ramasomappas adoption. He then applied to Government for the grant of ex post facto sanction to his adoption by Bhimrao and, alternatively, prayed that in case the sanction was not given, then the watan might be resumed by the levy of full assessment on the lands and he should not be evicted therefrom. Both these requests were turned down and the Government passed orders for resuming possession of the lands. Ramasomappa then brought the suit against the Secretary of State for a declaration that the orders passed by Government for resumption of possession of the watan lands were illegal . The trial court having dismissed the suit Ramasomappa came up in appeal to the Bombay High Court. The question whether the original grant to the respondents ancestor was of the soil or it was only a right to the royal share of the revenue d id not arise for consideration in Ramasomappa v. Secretary of State (supra). The Bombay High Court allowed Ramasomappas appeal holding that the Sanad of 1872 did not purport to be a grant of the right to occupy the soil, it had only reference to and w as a grant of the right to hold the lands free from full assessment, and that if any of the conditions of the grant, namely the condition of remaining faithful to Government or the condition of paying a fixed duty was broken, then Government was only entitled to claim full assessment on the lands but any right of occupation which the holder of the watan possessed apart from the Sanad would remain untouched. The Tribunals reading of the judgment in Ramasomappas case does not therefore seem to be correct. The judgment under appeal before us points out that the decision in Ramasomappa v. Secretary of State (supra) has no bearing on the issue involved in the instantfor the appellants also relied on the decision in 39 Bombay Law Reporter 851  in support of the appeal but, for the reasons stated above, we do not think Ramasomappas case at all helps him. The only other ground urged was that an application made on behalf of the respondent in 1947 (when he was a minor) under section 10 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act (Act III of 1874) having been rejected, the respondents right to a regrant of the watan lands was extinguished. Section 10 empowered the Collector to issue a certificate on the basis of which the respondent could bring an action against the appellants for recovery of possession of the lands. The point was argued before the Deputy Commissioner in the present proceedings who held that the rejection of the application d id not take away the right of the watandar to ask for a regrant of the watan lands under section 4 of the 1950 Act. From the judgment of the High Court it does not appear the point was argued there, and normally the appellants should not be all owed to take the point in this Court. In any case it seems to us clear that the rejection of the application under section 10 ofthe Bombay Hereditary Offices Act,1874 is not a matter relevant to the issue whether the respondent is entitled to a re grant of the watan lands under section 4 of the 1950for the appellants also relied on the decision in 39 Bombay Law Reporter 851  in support of the appeal but, for the reasons stated above, we do not think Ramasomappas case at all helpsonly other ground urged was that an application made on behalf of the respondent in 1947 (when he was a minor) under section 10 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act (Act III of 1874) having been rejected, the respondents right to a regrant of the watan lands was extinguished. Section 10 empowered the Collector to issue a certificate on the basis of which the respondent could bring an action against the appellants for recovery of possession of the lands. The point was argued before the Deputy Commissioner in the present proceedings who held that the rejection of the application d id not take away the right of the watandar to ask for a regrant of the watan lands under section 4 of the 1950 Act. From the judgment of the High Court it does not appear the point was argued there, and normally the appellants should not be all owed to take the point in this Court. In any case it seems to us clear that the rejection of the application under section 10 ofthe Bombay Hereditary Offices Act,1874 is not a matter relevant to the issue whether the respondent is entitled to a re grant of the watan lands under section 4 of the 1950