Case: Sayed Rehmanmiya Mustafamiya &amp; Others Vs. The State Of Gujarat &amp; Others

1. The appellants in all these appeals were holders of barkhali tenure in two villages situated in the State of Gujarat in areas which were formerly part of the Part B State of Saurashtra until Saurashtra was merged in the State of Bombay. When the State of Saurashtra was formed, it included areas which were ruled by the Indian Princes in which the tenure systems were different from the systems in British India. In 1948, by Ordinance XXV of 1948 issued by the Raj Pramukh, a number of Acts in force in the Province of Bombay were applied to the State of Saurashtra. That Ordinance was amended by Ordinance XXXIX of 1948. The effect of this amendment was that, under the amended Ordinance XXV of 1948, the Bombay Land Revenue Code V of 1879 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") with certain adaptations and modifications became applicable to Saurashtra. The main modifications, with which we are concerned, are that Chapters VIII and VIII-A of the Code were not applicable to the State of Saurashtra and Section 52 was made applicable, subject to the omission of the reference to Chapter VIII-A in that section. There was a further amendment of Ordinance XXV of 1948 by Ordinance LXIV of 1949 the result of which was that entry relating to Section 52 of the Code in Ordinance XXV of 1948 was omitted. The consequence of this omission was that Section 52 became applicable to the State of Saurashtra, including the reference to Chapter VIII-A which existed in it in the original Code. Further, Ordinance XXV of 1948 was so amended that Chapters VIII and VIII-A also become applicable to the State of Saurashtra with some slight modifications. Thus, after this ordinance, matters relating to land revenue in the State of Saurashtra were governed by the Bombay Code applied to that State with the modifications laid down in the two Ordinances XXXIX of 1948 and LXIV of 1949 mentioned above.2. In this state of law, the Saurashtra Legislature passed two Acts for abolishing certain tenure rights. One was the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act No. XXV of 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Reforms Act") for abolition of Girasdari tenure, and the second was the Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition Act No. XXVI of 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for abolition of Barkhali tenure. As a result of the abolition of the rights of the appellants, they became entitled to compensation under Section 18 of the Act which provided for payment of cash annuity calculated on the basis of the assessment in respect of the land in possession of the tenants of the holders of Barkhali tenure. The assessment in respect of the land, on the basis of which compensation was to be calculated and annuity paid, was defined in Section 19 of the Act which reads asFor the purposes of this Act, assessment shall mean in relation to any land, until the village in which such land is situate is surveyed and settled, assessment calculated on an arithmetic average of assessment leviable in the surrounding and adjoining khalsa or assessed non-khalsa lands or villages.(2) For the purpose of determining the assessment on any land, the Mamlatdar may hold an inquiry in the prescribed manner and fix the assessment on such land, and the assessment so determined shall be published in such manner as may be prescribed:Provided that where the assessment so calculated is manifestly unfair, the Government may modify it keeping in view the abovepursuance of the power given to the Mamlatdar under Section 19 (2) read with Section 19 (1) of the Act, the Mamlatdar determined the assessment in accordance with the principle laid down in S. 19 (1), and the initial payment as well as some installments of the annuity were paid to the appellants on the basis of the assessment so determined. In 1959, however, the Government amended the Saurashtra Land Revenue Rules framed under the Code as it had been adapted and applied to Saurashtra area and substituted R. 17 for the existing Rule 17 as it had been inserted in 1957. This Rule 17 laid down the procedure for the assessment of the amount to be paid as land revenue on all lands in Saurashtra which were not wholly exempt from payment of land revenue and on which the assessment had not been fixed under the provisions of Chapter VIII-A. This Rule, thus, laid down the method to be adopted by the Collector for fixing the assessment under Section 52 of the Code. This amended Rule 17 was brought into force on the 20th May, 1959 and, in pursuance of this Rule, the Collector determined the assessment payable, inter alia, on the lands which were held under Barkhali tenure by the appellants. Consequent on this assessment by the Collector under Section 52 of the Code, the Government started paying annuity under Section 18 of the Act to the appellants on the basis of this assessment instead of continuing payment on the basis of the assessment which had been made by the Mamlatdar under Section 19 of the Act. This was challenged by the appellants in the High Court of Gujarat, but unsuccessfully. Consequently, the appellants have come up to this Court in these appeals on the basis of certificate of fitness granted by the High Court under Article 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution.

Reasoning:
4. It is true that the words "surveyed and settled" have not been defined in the Act; but, in Clause (v) of Section 2 of the Act, it is laid down that all words and expressions used, but not defined, in the Act shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Reforms Act. Again, in Section 2 (33) of the Reforms Act, it is laid down that all words and expressions used, but not defined, in that Act and defined in the Code shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Code. Since the words "surveyed and settled" were not defined in either of these two Acts, we have to look to the Code to find their meaning.will, thus, be seen that, even under the Code, the two words "survey" and "settlement" were not fully defined for all purposes. The definition of settlement was limited by laying down that this word was to connote the meaning given to it in the definition only in Chapter VIII-A. However, the procedure for survey was fully indicated in Chapter VIII, while the procedure for settlement was fully laid down in Chapter VIII-A. It was in this state of law that the Saurashtra Legislature passed the Act in 1951. It is, however, clear that, at the time when the Act was passed, the only manner of survey which was laid down by any law applicable in the State of Saurashtra was that contained in Chapter VIII of the Code and the only manner of settlement was that contained in Chapter VIII-A. There was, of course at the same time, provision contained in Section 52 of the Code for assessment of the amount to be paid as land revenue on all lands; but, in that section, neither the words "survey" nor "settlement" or any of their derivatives was used. In the circumstances, we consider that the submission made by counsel for the appellants that the words "surveyed and settled" used in Section 19 of the Act were intended to refer to the survey and settlement under Chapters VIII and VIII-A of the Code has great force.This view of ours is further strengthened by a comparison of the language used in Section 19 of the Act and Section 52 of theseems to us that the Saurashtra Legislature, in passing the Act, for the temporary period until there could be a regular survey and settlement, created a machinery by granting power to the Mamlatdar to make a summary assessment and that was clearly intended not to be superseded by another summary fixation of assessment by the Collector under Section 52 of the Code.7. The High Court has held that, in substance and in effect, the Collector, in acting under Section 52 of the Code and Rule 17, did make the assessment after survey and settlement. Nowhere did the High Court examine whether any of the steps which are taken in a survey were required to be taken by the Collector at all. The High Court seems to have assumed that the procedure laid down in Rule 17 amounted to survey and settlement. Further, the High Court lost sight of the fact that, under Sec. 52 of the Code and Rule 17 the assessment of land revenue payable was in respect of lands, while Section 19 of the Act envisaged survey and settlement not of individual lands but of a village. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view of the High Court that what the Collector did in 1959 in making the assessment under Section 52 of the Code and Rule 17 amounted to survey and settlement of villages as envisaged in Sec. 19 of the Act. There having been no survey and settlement of the village, the assessment made by the Mamlatdar continued to be assessment for purposes of the Act and the Government was, therefore, not justified in varying the payment of annuity under Section 18 of the Act which should have been continued to be paid in accordance with that assessment.