NAVINCHA:\DRA BABUBHAI -.; AGARSHETll AND

ORS.

BOMBAY REVENUE TRIBU'.'iAL AND ORS.

January 21, 1966

[A. K. SARKAR, J. R. MUDHOLKAR AND0 R. S. BACllAWAT, JJ.]

Bombay Parona/ /nams Abolition Act (42 o/ 1953), ss. 5, 17(1) and (5)-Gran/ oj land willi exemption regarding pay1nent of /and revenue- Jnam abolished-lnamdar's right to co1npe11sation.

The appellanlS were holders of shares in Inam villages. On the loams heing aboltshcd by Bombay Personal Inarns Abolition Act, 1953 they claimed compensation for their lnarns under s. 17 (I) of the Act.

By 1. 17(5). "Nothing is this section ahall entitle any person to compen'3tion o.i the ground that any inam village or inarn hind which has (sic.) wholly or pan.iaHy exempt from 1hc payment of Jand revenue has been under the provisions of thi.s Act made subject to the payment of full assessment in .accordance with the provisions of the Code." Section S of the Act providod,

"'(i) All inam villages or inam lands are and shall be liable to the payment of land revenue in accordance with the proviions of the Code ancl rules made thereunder and the provisioos of the ('.ode and the rules relating to unalienated land ahall apply

10 such lands.

(12) (a) An inamdar in respect of the inam land in his actual possession or in pOfisession of a person holding from him olher E than an inferior holder, referred to in clause (b), below or

(b) an inferior holder holding inam land on payn1ent of annual a"essment only shall primarily be liable to the State Government for the payment of land revenue, due in respect of such .. land held by him and shall be entitled to all the righta and shall be liahle to all obligations in rospect of ouch land as an occupant under the Code or the rules made thereunder or any F other law for the time being in force."

HELD (Per Sarkar J.) (I) On a construction of the Sanad by which the inams were granted, the grants were of villag6 and cxtmp1ion from land revenue as mentioned in s. 17(5).

What the tenant.. paid to the lnamdars wa..~ not somclhing which was due to the Government which the Inamdars kept to then1, elves but v:a<; rent due to the Inamdars.

[414 G;

415 CJ G Even afler the survey in the lnam villages in 1900 under the Bombay Land Revenue Code. 1879 the lnamdars remained the grantees of the soil exempt from payment of revenue and the tenants remained liable, a' before, to pay rent to the Inamdars.

[415 B-F]

(2) Section S of the Act does not show that the lnamdurs were claiming compC!l'iJtion for rhc loss of money that they U'\Cd t~ collect from the

inferior holders. the ri'.!ht 10 \vhich collec11on \Vas ahohshcd by the Act II and therefore s. 17 ( 5 1 did not apply to thorn. The fact that un<ler s. 5 the

1Jnamdar h<t" nl)t himc; elf been made liable for the revenue in respect of lhc land held hy th~ inferior holders. made no difference.

By s. S an 41:?

NAVINCHANDRA v. REVENUE TRIBUNAL (Sarkar,!.) 413

Inamdar has been deprived of his right to the assessment from the inferior holders and the infeoor holders have been made liable to pay that .. seament to the Government.

Therefore, in actual result, the Inamdar baa been deprived of his right to the assessment because the land ha.. been made subject to the payment of land revenue and he was, therefore covered by s. 17(5). [416 E-0]

Per Mudholkar, J. : Section 5 (I) of the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1953, creates liability to pay land revenue to the Govcrament with respect to inarn lands, in accordance with the provi!ioo• of the Bombay Land Revenue Olde, 1879.

Where lands wero in poss"5sioo of inferior holders s. 5(2) (b) places the liability on the inferior holdera. The loss resulting to the inarndara is the direct consequenco of the operation of these provisions.

Therefore s. 17(5) of the Act bars the claim for compensation for loss of the right of the appellants to recover from the inferior holders land revenue assessed on the lands in their possession.

[419 C-E]

Per Bachawat. J :

The grants of the villages, on the construction of the deeds were grants of villages with partial exemption from payment of land revenue :wd were personal inams of the category specified ins. 2(l)(c)(i). The introduction of the survey settlement made no difference in the character 01 the inams. After the Abolition Act, the lands no longer enjoyed either

total or partial exemption from payment of land revenue. By •· 5 (I) of lhe Act, all inam lands are now liable to payment of full land revenue.

Bys. 5(2)(b), in respect of lands held by inferior holder> the inferior holders now enjoy the status of occupants, and are liable to pay the land revenue directly to the State Government. The appellants were not entitled to claim compensation in respect of the abolition of their right to re cover assessment from the inferior hoders, because such a claim is really on the ground that the inam lands which were formerly exempt from payment of land revenue have been subjected by the Act to payment of full assessment.

Such a claim is based bys. 17(5).

A grant of village or land with total or partial exemption of land revenue is essentially different from a grant of land revenue and the distinction has been preserved by the Act. On the extension of the grant

of lar.d revenue, the :namdar loses all rights in respect of the grant and he is therefore entitled to full compensation under s. 17 (I). On the other hand, on abolition of the grant of an inarn village or land the inamdar is allowed to retain and enjoy various rights and benefits, hut at the same time the right to compensation under s. 17 (1) is subject to the bar of :;. 17(5). f 420 H-421 HJ

CIVIL APPELLATE

JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1048- 1050 of 1963.

Appeals from the judgment and decree dated September 2 1958 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Applications Nos. JIOO, 1161and1162of1958.

D. B. Padhya, J. B. Nagar and A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for the H appellants (in all the appeals).

S. G. Patwardhan, and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (in all the three appeals).

The following Judgments were delivered:

Sarkar, J. These three appeals concern compensation payable under the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1952 to the appellants for abolition of their inams. Some of the appellants held shares in the inam \illage of Wanz and some in that of Dindoli. The appellants had moved the High Court at Bombay by several petitions under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the decision of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal regarding the compensation. The petitions were disposed of by the High Court by a common judgment. These appeals are against that judgment under a certificate granted by the High Court.

The appellants had claimed compensation under several heads based on different grounds but two of them survive. The first is that the appellants are entitled to compensation for loss of assessment payable to them by inferior holders, a special class of tenants holding lands from them. The Act does not expressly provide for compensation in respect of such lands. Sub-section

(l) of s. 17 of the Act however provides that if any person is aggrieved by the provisions of the Act abolishing any of his rights to or interest in property and if compensation for such abolition has not been provided for, such person may apply to the Collector for compensation. The appellants base their claim on this section.

Sub-section (5) of this section makes the right under sub-s. (I) unavailable in a certain case and the question is whether the appellants' claim fell within it. Now the sub-section is in these terms:·

S. 17(5)-Nothing in this section shall entitle any person to compensation on the ground that any inam village or inam land which has (sic.) wholly or partially exempt from the payment of land revenue has been under the provisions of this Act made subject to the payment of full assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Code.

Clearly this sub-section applies only to a certain kind of claim for compensation in respect of ; in inam village exempt from payment of land revenue. The appellants say that their inams were not of this kind and so the sub-section does not affect their claim.

According to them, their inams consisted of a grant of land revenue only. The nature of an inam depends on the sanad or the tenns of the grant. The High Court held on a construction of the sanads that the inams were grants of the villages with exemption from land revenue, because the words of the grant conveyed the soil and rights over trees. water, mines etc.

This view is obviously correct.

The appellants then said that notwithstanding that the soil had been granted, their inams were none the less of land revenue only. Their contention is that before the grants the tenants in

I •

' •

NA VINCHANDRA v. REVENUE TRIBUNAL (Sarkar; J.) 41.5

occupation paid revenue to the Government and thereafter to the inamdars and the latter being exempt from the liability to pay it over to the Government, the net result was that the inamdars retained the land revenue and were, therefore, the grantees thereof.

This contention is idle. There is nothing to show that there were tenants holding lands in the villages before the grants which were made in 1794 and 1803 respectively and whether they paid anything and if so, what ? Furthermore, what the tenants paid to the inamdars (holders of the inams) after the grants was rent and not revenue; it was for the inamdars to fix the amount of it or forego it altogether if they so liked. What the tenants paid to the inamdars was not something which was due to the Government which the inamdars kept to themselves having been exempted from the liability to pay it over to the Government; it was rent due to the inamdars.

It was next said that whatever might have been the position earlier, after the introduction of the survey in the villages in 1900 under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 what a tenant paid to an inamdar was land revenue. There is no justification for this contention either. No doubt since the introduction of the survey the amounts payable by the tenants to the inamdars were all assessed under the Code. The nature of the assessment payable was not however altered thereby nor did it become land revenue .

The survey fixed the amount payable by a tenant to the inamdar and gave him certain rights. It also conferred certain benefits on the inamdar in the matter of the realisation of his dues. The fact that the assessment was made in the same way as land revenue made no difference. It did not change the right to the assessment.

Notwithstanding all this the inamdar remained the grantee of the soil and a person who was not liable to pay revenue in respect of it and likewise the tenant remained liable as before to pay rent to the inamdar.

Furthermore, the distinction between the two kinds of grants is well recognised and has been maintained by the Act by specifying in s. 2 (I)( e) that an inam means a grant of a village with exemp-- tion from liability to pay land revenue and also a grant of land revenue only. The appellants' contention would in effect wipe out G this distinction and cannot therefore be accepted.

The appellants then contended that even if their inams were grants of villages exempt from payment of land revenue, sub-s. (5) of s. 17 did not bar their claim because they were not claiming compensation on the ground that the inam villages previously exempted from land revenue had under the Act been made subject to it. They say that they have not been made liable to pay land revenue themselves and are only claiming the loss of the money that they used to collect from the inferior holders, the right to,.

which collection was abolished by the Act. This contention is based -0n s. 5 of the Act which is set out below:

S. 5. (I) All inam villages or in am lands arc and shall be liable to the payment of land revenue in accordance with the provisions of the Code and the rules made thereunder and the provisions of the Code and the rules relating to unalienated land shall apply to such lands.

(2J(a) An inamdar in respect of the inam land in his actual possession or in possession of a person holding from him other than an inferior holder, referred to in clause (b) hclow, or

(b) an inferior holder holding inam land on payment of annual assessment only shall primarily be liable to the State Government for the payment of land revenue, due in respect of such land held by him and shall be entitled to all the rights and shall be liable to all obligations in respect of such land as an occupant under the Code or the rules made thereunder or any other law for the time being in force.

It seems to me that this contention is also without any foundation. The inamdar's right to appropriate to himself the assessment fixed hy the survey and collected from the inferior holders existed Only because he was exempt from the liability to pay land revenue.

If he was not so exempt, then what he collected from the inferior holders would have to be paid over to the Government. It would follow that the loss for which the appellants claim compensation was really occasioned by the lands being subjected to revenue by s. 5(2)(b).

The fact that the inamdar has not himself been made liable for the revenue in respect of the lands held by inferior holders makes no difference. The substance of the matter is that the inamdar has been deprived of his right to the assessment from the inferior holders and the inferior holders have been made liable to pay that assessment to the Government.

So in actual result the inamdar has been deprived of his right to the assessment because the land has been made subject to payment of land revenue.

His claim for the loss of assessment is, therefore, in Teality based on the ground that the lands which were free from revenue ha'e been made subject to it.

Sub-section (5) of s. 17 does not provide that the bar mentioned in it operates only when land revenue is made payable by the inamdar.

It also seems to me that any other interpretation would lead to a result which could not have been intended. It is not in dispute that for the loss of rights in respect of lands in his own pos- H session excepting those mentioned in s. 7 or any lands in possession of persons holding from him other than as inferior holders .an inamdar is not entitled to compensation.

It is adn11tted that

NAVINCHANDRA v. REVENUE TRIBUNAL (Mudholkar, J.) 417

A such compensation could not be allowed in view of s. 17 (5) .

It would be difficult to imagine a reason for the legislature to have made a distinction between such lands and lands in the possession of inferior holders.

The other part of the claim concerns the right to forfeit the inferior holders' tenancies for non-payment of rent and the right of reversion in respect of them. These the appellants have no doubt lost. The Collector asked the appellants to produce evidence in support of their claims under this head. They failed to do so. They could not even cite one instance of the exercise of any such right. It would be impossible to value the loss in respect of them as no material for doing so is on the record nor was furnished by the appellants. No compensation can, therefore, be assessed or awarded for the loss of these rights.

The result is that the appeals fail and they are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

Mudholkar, J. These appeals are from a judgment of the Bombay High Court dismissing the writ petitions preferred by the appellants before it. The appellants are co-sharers either in the former Inam village Wanz or in the former lnam village Dindoli, both of which are situate in Surat District. Under the Bombay Personal lnams Abolition Act, 1952 all personal Inams were extinguished and all Inam villages as well as all Inam lands were made liable to the payment of land revenue in accordance with the provisions of the Land Revenue Code. The Act did not provide for compensation to the Inamdars with respect to the loss of their rights to hold their villages or lands free from payment of land revenue. Under s. 10 of the Act, however, compensation to the Inamdars was provided for the extinguishment of certain rights possessed by them in their Inam villages. Those rights vest, by virtue of the provisions of s. 7 of the Act, in the Government.

Section 17(1) of the Act po vi des for payment of compensation to a person aggrieved by the provisions of the Act which abolished, extinguished or modified any of his rights or interests in property provided that compensation for such abolition, extinguishment

or modification of those rights had not been provided for in any of the provisions of the Act. To this provision the following exception has been made in sub-section ( 5):

"Nothing in this section shall entitle any person to compensation on the ground that any inam village or inam land which has wholly or partially exempt from the payment of land revenue has been under the provisions of this Act made subject to the payment of full assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Code."

It is common ground that in both the villages there were holders of land called inferior holders. These were persons claiming through tillers in cultivating possession of different pieces of land in the Inam villages at the time of the grant of the Inams. It is common ground that their rights to continue to be in possession of those lands and cultivate them were left in tact by the lnamdars and the grantees of the lnams were only entitled to claim rents from them.

It is common ground that under s. 216 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 settlement was introduced both in Wanz and Dindoli villages though at different points of time.

It is also the common case of the parties that after the introduction of the survey, land revenue was assessed on the lands held by the inferior holders and in place of their liability to pay such rent as may be fixed from time to time by the lnamdars they thenceforward were rendered liable to pay to the Inamdar only the land revenue assessed at the settlement. So far as the Government was concerned the grantees of the villages Wanz and Dindoli were exempt from paying land revenue not only in respect of lands held by the inferior holders but also in respect of lands held by the lnamdars themsel\"es or held by persons holding through the Inamdars.

Now, in consequence of the extinguishment of the right of the lnamdars to hold the villages revenue free they have been rendered liable to pay land revenue to the Government in respect of the lands in their possession or in the possession of persons holding through them.

No liability is, however, cast upon them to pay to the Government land revenue in respect of lands in the possession of inferior holders. This follows clearly from s. 5 of the Act and is not disputed by either set of parties to the appeal.

No compensation is expresse!y provided for the Joss of the right of the lnamdar to recover from the inferior holders land revenue assessed on the lands in their possession. Mr. Padhya contends that the appellants would, therefore, be entitled to claim compensation in respect of this loss under s. 17(1).

He points out that the loss of this right to the lnamdars is not occasioned because of the fact that the lnam villages were made liable to pay full assessment but because the inferior holders have now been required to pay land revenue to the Government instead of to the lnamdars. It is difficult to accept this argument. The relevant provision of the Act for consideration s. 5 which runs thus:

"5(1) All inam villages or inam lands are and shall be liable to the payment of!and revenue in accordance with the provisions of the Code and the rules made thereunder and the provisions of the Code and the rules relating to una!icnated land shall apply to such lands. (2)(a) An inamdar in respect of the inam land in his actual possession or in possession of a person holding from

H •

NAVINCHANDRA v. REVENUE TRIBUNAL (Bachawat, J.) 419

him other than an inferior holder, referred to in clause

(b) below, or

(b) an inferior holder holding inam land on payment of annual assessment only shall primarily be liable to the

State Government for the payment of land revenue due in respect of such land held by him and shall be entitled to all the rights and shall be liable to all obligations in respect of such land as an occupant under the Code or the rules made thereunder or any other law for the time being in force." It is sub-section (I) of this section which creates liability to pay land revenue. Sub-section (2) then proceeds to say as to who is made liable to pay land revenue: the Inamdar or holder from the Inamdar or an inferior holder. Clause (b) of sub-s. (2) which deals with the liability placed on inferior holders has, therefore, to be read with sub-s. (I) and when they are so read it would be clear that the loss resulting to the Inamdar is the direct consequence of the operation of these provisions. In other words it is the direct consequence ofthe provisions of the Act that lands in possession of inferior holders are made liable to pay full assessment "in accordance with the provisions of the Code". This in the context means, liable to pay full assessment to the Government. It is true that by making this provision the Inamdars have sustained loss of one of their rights in property. It is also true that ifs. 17(1) does not apply-as in my view it does not applyno compensation is payable to the Inamdars. However, as no argument has been raised before us that the aforesaid provision of the Act infringes the guarantee incorporated in Art. 31 (I) of the Constitution and is, therefore, unconstitutional the provisions ofs. 5 of the Act must be held to be fully operative.

It was faintly urged by learned counsel that the Inamdar's right of reversion and right of escheathavealso been taken away by the Act and no compensation is provided for it. No provision was, however, brought to our notice by virtue of which it could be said that these rights of the Inamdars have at all been touched by the Act. Even assuming that these rights have been taken away it seems to me that the grounds given by the High Court for rejecting the appellants' claim are cogent and adequate. In the result, therefore, I agree that the appeals be dismissed. I would make no order as to costs.

Bachawat, J. The appellants were holders of shares in inam villages; some held shares in the inam village of Wanz, others held shares in the inam village of Dindoli. The inams were abolished by the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1952. By s. 4 of the Act, save as expressly provided by or under the Act, all rights in the inams were extinguished. Sections IO and 17(1) provided for payment of compensation. In view of sub-s. (5) of

SUPREME COURT Rf PORTS

[1966] 3 S.C.R.

s. 17, no compensation can be claimed under sub-s. (I) of s. 17 on the ground that any inam village or inam land which was wholly or partially exempt from payment of land revenue has been under the Act made subject to the payment of full assessment. The appellants filed claims for compensation under ss. 10 and 17 (1) of the Act before the Collector of Surat. We arc now concerned with the following two claims for compensation under s. 17(1) of the Act: (I) loss for the abolition of the right of the appellants to recover assessment from the inferior holders in respect of the lands in their possession; (2) loss for the extinction of the right of reversion and forfeiture in respect of those lands. The Collector of Surat and the Bombay Revenue Tribunal concurrently held that the claim for compensation in respect of the first item was barred bys. 17(5) of the Act and in respect of the claim under the second head, the appellants failed to prove that they sustained any loss.

The appellants filed applications under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the High Court at Bombay challenging the correctness of these findings.

The High Court dismissed the applications.

Section 2(1)(c) of the Acl classifies personal inams into two categories. The appellants content that their inams were grants of land revenue and therefore personal inams of the second category specified in s. 2( I )(c)(ii).

In respect of the personal inam of the second category. the bar of s. 17(5) is not attracted. On the other hand, the respondents contend that the inams in question were grants of villages partially exempt from payment of the land revenue, and therefore personal inams of the first category specified in s. 2(1)(c)(i).

In respect of personal inams of the first category, the bar of s. 17(5) is attracted. The High Court held-and, in my opinion, rightly-that the grants of the villages on their trae construction were grants of the soil. The inamdars were not required to pay any land revenue except the quit rent and some small haqs. Consequently, the grants were grants of villages with partial exemption from payment of the land revenue and were personal inams of the first category specified ins. 2(1)(e)(i).

The survey and settlement of the villages under s. 216 of the Land Revenue Code, 1879 made no difference in the character of the inams. The introduction of the survey settlement did not confer on the inferior holders the status of occupants, nor render them liable to pay land revenue to the Government; they continued to be inferior holders under the inamdar and liable to pay the asses.'- ments to him.

In spite of the survey settlement, the villages continued to be alienated villages, and the inams continued to be personal inams of the first c3tegory referred to ins. 2(1)(c)(i) of the Act.

The High Court rightly held that the appellants arc not entitled to claim compensation in respect of the abolition of their

NAVINCHANDRA v. REVENUE TRIBUNAL (Bachawat, !.) 421

right to recover assessment from the inferior holders. The inam lands no longer enjoyed either total or partial exemption from payment of land revenue. By s. 5(1) of the Act, all inam lands are now liable to payment of full land revenue. By s. 5(2)(b), in respect of lands held by inferior holders on payment of assessment only, the inferior holders now enjoy the status of occupants, and are liable to pay the land revenue directly to the State Government. In respect of those lands, the inamdars are neither entitled to collect the assessment from the inferior holders nor liable to pay land revenue to the State Government. Had the appellants' right to recover assessment from the inferior holders not been abolished, they would have been entitled to recover the amounts of assessments from the inferior holders and at the same time would have been liable to pay the identical amounts. to the Government on account of land revenue. The loss consequential on the abolition of the right to recover assessment is, therefore, nil. The claim under this head is really on the ground that the inam lands which were formerly exempt from payment of land revenue have been subjected by the Act to payment of full assessment. Such a claim is barred by s.17(5) of the Act.

With regard to the claim for compensation under the second' head, the High Court rightly held that the appellants could not establish any loss under this head. They failed to show that they exercised any right of forfeiture or claimed any right of reversion at any time. I see no reason for disturbing the finding of the High Court and the Tribunals below on this point.

The appellants submit that in view of the ephemeral nature of their rights of reversion and forfeiture in respect of the lands held by the inferior holders, the grants of villages, as far as they relate to those lands, are assimilated to grants of land revenue. They submit that the High Court and the Tribunals below while holding that the only right of the appellants in respect of those lands was to recover the assessments from the inferior holders, have inconsistently and unjustly held that the grants were grants of inam villages and not of land revenue so as to attract the bar of" s. 17(5). This submission is not well-founded. A grant of a village or land with total or partial exemption from payment of land revenue is essentially different from a grant of land revenue, and the distinction has been preserved by the Act. On the extinction of the grant of land revenue, the inamdar loses all rights in respect of the grant, and he is therefore entitled to full compensation under s. s. 17(1). On the other hand, on abolition of the grant of an inam village or land, the inamdar is allowed to retain and enjoy various rights and benefits arising out of the grant. Section 5(2)(a) gives him the rights of an occupant in respect of lands in his actual possession or in possession of persons holding from him other than

inferior holders. The grants of inam lands, on their true construction, may include the right to mines or mineral products, see Secretary of State for India v. Slzantaram Naravan('), and this right of the inamdar, if any, is preserved hy s. 9 of the Act.

Bys. JO of the Act the inamdar holding inam villages or lands is entitled to compensation in respect of any right or interest in any property referred to ins. 7. He is also entitled to compensation under s. 17(1), but this right is subject to the provisions of s. 17(5).

It will appear, therefore, that the Act treats the inams of the two categories very differently.

While the holder of the inam of the first category referred to in s. 2(1)(e)(i) suffers from the disadvantage of the bar of s. 17 (5) in respect of compensation, he enjoys numerous advantages which are denied to the holder of the inam of the second category referred to ins. 2(1)(e)(ii).

The appeals fail, and are dismissed.

There will be no order as to costs.

Appeals dismissed.

--·--·--- ~(t) (1925) I. L. R. 49 Dom. 99.