Case: The Collector Of South Satara &amp; Anr Vs. Laxman Mahadev Deshpande &amp; Ors

2. Laxman Madhdev Deshpande-here-inafter called the respondent-was the holder of Paragana Watan land bearing Survey Nos. 503/2 and 504/1 in Mouza Aitwade, Talulq Value, District South Satara. Performance of service in respect of the Watan had been commuted under an arrangement made in or about 1864 under a commutation settlement popularly known as "Gordon Settlement" whereby the holder was, on agreeing to pay a fixed sum, relieved of the obligation to perform service as a Village Officer.3. The Legislature of the State of Bombay enacted an Act called the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act LX of 1950, which abolished all Paragana and Kulkarni Watans. The respondent applied to the Collector of South Satara for an order under S. 9 of the Act awarding Rs. 10, 479-2-8 as compensation for extinction of his right in the watan land, and of his right to enjoy part of the land revenue". By his order dated April 29, 1957 the Collector rejected the application, and the order of the Collector was affirmed by the Bombay Revenue Tribunal in appeal under S. 9(4) of the Act. But in a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution the High Court of Bombay set aside the order of the Collector and directed that Officer to assess and pay compensation to the respondent under S. 9(1) of the Abolition Act.4. The land was granted to an ancestor of the respondent as remuneration for performance of Paragana service some time in the sixteenth century by the Ruler of Satara, and that grant was confirmed by the British Government. The original grant and the confirmation sanad have not been produced, but it is common ground between the parties that the grant was of the soil and not merely of the royal share of revenue. In adjudging the claim made by the respondent for compensation under S. 9 of the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, it is necessary in the first instance to ascertain the true character of the rights of a watandar in the land granted as remuneration for performance of service and the effect of the commutation settlement, in the light of the material provisions of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, III of 1874, commonly known as the Want Act. By S. 4 of the Watan Act Watan property s. defined as meaning- "moveable or immovable property held, acquired, or assigned for providing remuneration for the performance of the duty appertaining to an hereditary office x x" Hereditary Office is defined as meaning "every office held hereditarily for the performance of duties connected with the administration or collection of the public revenue or with the village police, or with the settlement of boundaries, or other matters of civil administration. The expression includes such office even where the service originally appertaining to it have ceased to be demanded. The watan property, if any, and the hereditary office and the rights and privileges attached to them together constitute the watan" and the expression Watandar means a person having an hereditary interest in a watan : it includes a person holding watan property acquired by him before the introduction of the British Government into the locality of the watan, or legally acquired subsequent to such introduction, and a person holding such property from him by inheritance.

Court's reasoning:
7. It appears clear from the scheme of S. 6 that if the remuneration of the Watandar is merely cash allowance, or part or whole of the land revenue of the land, compensation at the rate prescribed is payable to the holder on abolition of the watan. If the remuneration consists not of cash allowance or remission of land revenue, but of the land itself by the combined operation of Ss. 3 (3) and 4 the holder of the watan land is entitled to be regranted occupancy rights as in unalienated land. Section 9 deals with the rights of persons to receive compensation for abolition, extinguishment or modification of the right or interest in watan property by virtue of the provisions of the Act, in cases where no. other provision is made in that behalf in the Act. There is no. serious dispute raised about this being the true position infirst question presents little difficulty in its solution. Section 3 in terms provides for abolition of the watan, extinction of the office and modification of the right in which the land is held. The abolition, extinction and modification arises by the operation of S. 3 of the Act, and not from the exercise of the executive power of confiscation or resumption, by the State. Undoubtedly the power of resumption of a watan may be exercised under S. 22 of the Watan Act administration such a resumption may destroy the right of the holder both to the office and the watan land, and in the absence of any provision in that behalf no. right to compensation may arise. But where the abolition of the watan is not by executive action, but by legislative decree, its consequences must be sought in the statute which effectuates thattherefore, S. 4 which provides for conferment of occupancy rights in land, be regarded as a provision for compensation for abolition, extinction or modification of the right to hold it as watan land, the residuary enactment in S. 9 will not on the plain terms be attracted. By the operation of S. 3 all Paraganas and Kulkarni watans falling within the Act are abolished, the right to hold office is extinguished, and the land granted as remuneration for performance of service is resumed. The holder of the land is thereafter liable to pay land revenue, and is entitled, on payment of the occupancy price at the prescribed rate, to be regranted occupancy rights as if it is unalienated land. The right so conferred is, though not a right to cash compensation, a valuable right of occupancy in the land. By the resumption of watan land and regrant thereof in occupancy right, all the restrictions placed upon the holder of watan land are by the provisions of the Watan Act, and the terms of the grant, statutorily abolished. But the right of occupancy granted by S. 4 adequately compensates the holder for loss of the precarious interest of a watnadar, because the land regranted after abolition of the watan, is held subject only to the restrictions imposed by sub-s. (2) of S. 4, and is freed from incidents of watan tenure, such as restriction on alienation beyond the life-time of the holder, devolution according to the special rule of succession, and the liability to confiscation or resumption. In our judgment, compensation contemplated to be awarded, not as a matter of right but as of grace, is not merely money compensation; it includes grant of occupancy rights which compensates for the loss of office and the interest of a watandar in the land. By S. 4 the Legislature has granted for the loss suffered by watandar on abolition of the watan and the rights in watan land, a right of occupancy in the land which may properly be regarded as compensating him for abolition of his rights. Provision for levy of what is substantially a nominal occupancy price will not detract from that character. After the commutation settlement, the holder being relieved of the obligation to perform service, the office of watandar survives in name only, but the land granted as watan remains subject to the restrictions imposed by the Watan Act. By the regrant of the land in occupancy right, on abolition or extinction of the watan, the holder is not in truth prejudicially affected. Loss of watan rights in land, and the watan office is compensated by the regrant of occupancy rights in the land. It would, therefore, be reasonable to infer that the Legislature contemplated the grant of compensation under sub-s. (2) of S. 9 for abolition, extinction or modification of rights other than the rights of the watandar to land or to cash allowance or remission of land revenue.