Case: Bhagwantrao Vs. Vishwasrao And Another

The lands in suit were comprised in six survey numbers stated in paragraph one of the plaint. They lay in village Nawabag, a jagir village, of Ellichpur (now called Achalpur) taiuq of Berar, and we shall hereinafter give some more details of that jagir. In that village there were four families of Patels some members of which held the Patels office in rotation of ten years each. These four families went by the surnames of Dongre, Rokade, Raut and Ingle. We are concerned with the Rokade family. One Shivajirao of that family had two sons, called Amrit and Bhagwant. Bhagwant, as we know, is the appellant before us. Vishwasrao, respondent No. 1, is the son of Amrit. Shivajirao died sometime in 1886. His son Amrit died in 1920. In 1923 there was a partition between the appellant and respondent No.      1.The case of the appellant was that as a result of this partition, the "patelki inam" lands were divided and the lands in suit were allotted to the share of the appellant. When Shivajirao was alive, he worked as patel; so did Amritrao in his turn. Lastly, Vishwasrao also worked as patel. In 1935 a special officer was appointed by Government to prepare a record of rights of the jagir village of Nawabag. This officer submitted a report on which certain enquiries were made. As a result of these enquiries it was held that the appellant was not entitled to hold the "patelki inam" lands which were given as emoluments of his office to the working patel from the Rokade family. It was ordered by the Deputy Commissioner that the lands in possession of the appellant should be resumed and regranted to the working patel, viz. respondent No.      1.The appellant appealed against this order. The Commissioner of Berar set aside the order of eviction, but maintained the status quo pending final orders of Government. Ultimately, on December 19, 1941, the financial Commissioner held that the person actually working as patel was entitled to receive the full emoluments of his office, and revenue officers had consistently refused to admit any claims to shares in patelki emoluments. Accordingly, he set aside the order of the Commissioner and restored that of the Deputy Commissioner. Thereupon, the appellant brought his suit in 1942 in which he claimed that the Government had no jurisdiction or authority to resume and regrant the lands to respondent No. 1 and the orders passed by the revenue authorities concerned were null and void. The appellant asked for possession and mesne profits. By a subsequent amendment of the plaint, the appellant alleged that at least two of the plots, 2 /1A and 9/1A, had ceased to be "patelki inam" lands and were private property of the family. Therefore, in any view of the matter, Government had no right to resume these two plots. His claim with regard to these plots was alternatively placed on a somewhat different footing and we shall, in due course, consider that claim.      3. The suit was dismissed by the trial Judge, but on appeal by the present appellant the learned Additional District Judge of Amraoti decreed the suit. There was a second appeal to the High Court of Nagpur which allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate court, and restored that of the trial Judge. The High Court substantially held that (1) the lands in suit were granted by the then sovereign authority by way of remuneration of emoluments for services to be rendered by the patel and the grant was recognised as a service inam, by the British Government, and (2) it was open to the revenue authorities to resume and regrant the lands in accordance with the provisions of the Patels and Patwaris Law, 1900 in force in Berar and S. 190 of the Berar Land Revenue Code, 1928. Thereafter, the appellant applied for and obtained a certificate from the High Court and the present appeal has been brought pursuant to that certificate.

Court's reasoning:
5. As a result of a detailed enquiry, survey numbers 1 to 21 and 40 to 45 of the "patelki inam" lands fell in the resumed portion and survey numbers 22 to 39 were included in the jagir portion. As survey numbers 2/1A and 9/1A in possession of the Rokade family fell in the resumed portion, they were recorded as Khalsa and were assessed to revenue, while the remaining survey numbers viz. 29/1, 34/3, 36/2 and 37/2 continued to be in possession of the Rokade family free of assessment. There was another resumption proceeding in or about 1917 when it was discovered that the jagirdas had alienated lands falling in the jagir portion also. This time the lands resumed were not made Khalsa but were regranted to the jagirdars. As a result of this regrant the jagirdars thought that they were entitled to take possession of the "patelki inam" lands of the Rokade family also. This led to some more revenue proceedings, and we come now to one of the important documents in this case, viz, a letter dated August 28, 1922, by which sanction of Government was conveyed to the6. Now, apart from the alternative claim with regard to survey numbers 2/1A and 9/1A and the claim of title by adverse possession, which claims we shall consider later, the principal question which falls for decision in this appeal, is the true nature of these "patelki inam" lands; do they constitute a grant by way of remuneration or emoluments of the patels office by the use of the lands, as found by the High Court, or do they constitute a grant of land to the patelki family burdened with service and so long as the service is performed by any member of the family, the lands are joint family lands subject to partition etc., among the members of the family? On behalf of the appellant, it has been very strongly contended before us that the finding of the High Court on this point is wrong. On this part of the case learned counsel for the appellant has made a four-fold submission; firstly, that the rights which the Rokade family had in these lands were rights of dealing with the property as owners, subject to a member of the family rendering patelki service; or in other words, the grant was a grant of land burdened with service, secondly, the grant was made by the jagirdar of village Nawabag and not by the sovereign authority and neither the Inam Rules, nor the provisions of the Patels and Patwaris Law, 1900 applied; thirdly, even if the aforesaid Rules and provisions applied, the appellant still retained his herditary rights in the lands; and fourthly, the orders of Government dated August 28, 1922, did not confer any new right nor did they deprive anybody of any subsisting right in respect of the "petelki inam" lands and Government had no right to resume the lands and regrant them to respondent No. 18. There is, therefore, overwhelming evidence in this case to show that the patelki inams were separate from and independent of the jagir of Nawabag, though the lands lay within the jagir village9. This brings us to the more important question-what is the true character of the "patel inam" lands of this case? On this point also, we think that there is clear and unimpeachable evidence in support of the finding of the High Court. We have already referred to the Kararnama of 1771 and the inam entry of 1866. If the grants were a grant of land to the patelki families burdened with service, it is difficult to understand how there could arise a dispute about remuneration between the jagirdars and patels and why the remuneration of 1 1/2 bighas per netan should be fixed from year to year., In a revenue case of 1908 Amrit Patel had himself stated that the land was given to his ancestors in lieu of patelki huq and it should not be assessed to land revenue. Even in his plaint, the appellant had asserted that the "Patels were given certain lands out of the jagir village for their working as patels and for discharging other duties." There is another important document in this connection. In the second resumption proceedings of 1917 Government had first decided to resume the jagir and regrant it to the then Jagirdar Amerulla Khan. In the orders passed (Ex. 1D-18) it was stated that the Jagirdars would be at liberty to allow the working patels to hold such lands as were considered reasonable by the Deputy Commissioner free of revenue and in lieu of mushahara (emoluments or wages). It is important to note that everybody understood then that the "patelki inam" was in lieu of wages or emoluments for the office of patel. These orders led to an enquiry, and Amritrao made a statement that he was holding survey numbers 26, 27, 29, 34, 36 and 37 in lieu of patelki emoluments. He said that he was even willing to hold 4 acres 17 gunthas of survey No. 27 in lieu of his emoluments. It appears that the Sub-divisional officer then recommended that Amrit Patel should be given only 4 acres 17 gunthas, as emoluments for his office. Later, an application was made on behalf of Amrit17. We consider it unnecessary to multiply decisions. It is enough to state that no decision has been brought to our notice in which it has been held that a member of the patels family is entitled as of right to a share in the emoluments of the patels office and that Government has no right to resume "patelki inam" lands and regrant the same to the officiator18. It remains now to consider the special claim with regard to survey numbers 2/1A and 9/1A. The case of the appellant was that these two plots ceased to be inam lands, when they fell in the resumed portion of the Jagir; they were sold by Bannoobi Begum and Mahmudi Begum, the jagirdars, and the appellants and his brother Amrit brought suits and obtained decrees in respect of these two plots and in execution of the decrees they obtained possession. The learned trial Judge rightly point out that the decrees aforesaid related to property other than plots 2/1A and 9/1A. Moreover, it is not disputed that the entire "patelki inam" lands in possession of Amritrao Patel, including the plots which were made khalsa in 1904-05, were excluded from resumption and Amrits "patelki inam" lands were treated as a homogenous unit by the orders passed on August 28, 1922. The two plots, 2/1A and 9/1A, therefore, stand on the same footing as other "patelki inam" lands of Amritrao19. The claim of title by adverse possession can be disposed of in a few words. Once it is held that the lands were given by way of emoluments for the patels office, no question of title by adverse possession arises against Government, even though the lands were shown as excluded from the jagir of Nawabag in 1866. Amrit worked as patel till he died in 1920, and even though the appellant got possession by partition in 1923, it was open to Government to resume the lands in 1941 and regrant the same to respondent No. 1 The appellant can only succeed if he establishes that he had a right to a share in the "patelki inam" lands and Government had no right to resume the same. This the appellant has failed to establish.