MANGAL SINHJI DOLATSINHJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are the appeals by special leave from a common judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court disposing of the Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 52 to 55 of 1973 and also Letters Patent Appeal No. 50 of 1973. It is a common ground that the appellants are the tenants of certain lands which form part of the estate or wanta of a Taluqdar. The question is whether the provisions of S. 6 of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949, are applicable to the lands in question, and whether under the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949, which came into effect from 15th August, 1950, the said lands became vested in the State and all rights in the said land held by the Taluqdar'became the property of the Government. Under the provisions of S. 6 of the said Act, inter alia, all uncultivated lands excluding the land used for building and other non-agricultural purposes, vest in the State. S. 6 of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949, runs as follows:

(2.) The question is whether for the purposes of this section the lands in question were uncultivated lands. It is an admitted position that the lands were leased by the Taluqdar to the tenants. There is also a clear and categorical finding of fact that these lands had remained uncultivated for a period of 3 years immediately before the said Act came into force. Prima facie it would appear that in view of the said explanation to S. 6 the lands must be regarded as uncultivated lands for the purposes of S. 6 of the said Act and must be deemed to be vested in Government. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, contended that as the lands had been put to cultivation earlier for some time even though not cultivated for continuous. three years prior to vesting they cannot be regarded as uncultivated lands. According to learned counsel, if the land is capable of being cultivated, it cannot be treated as uncultivated land within the meaning of S. 6. He relied on a decision of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, reported in (1980) 1 SCR 233. Our attention has been drawn to the observation made at page 239 (of SCR) of the said report. After setting out the provision of S.6 it has been observed as follows:

(3.) The said decision of this Court and the observation relied on by the learned counsel do not come in the aid of the contention made by the learned counsel for the appellants. Even according to the appellants themselves, the lands were under cultivation for sometime prior to the coming into force of the said Act and hence, it could not be said that they were uncultivable lands. They were in fact, lands which were capable of cultivation and as a matter of fact subjected to cultivation for some time but, which as found by the High Court were not cultivated for continuous period of three years prior to the coming into force of the said Act. In these circumstances, the said lands are clearly covered by the definition of the expression "uncultivated land" as set out in the Explanation to S. 6. As the said lands were uncultivated lands within the meaning of S. 6, they must be deemed to have been vested in the Government and the contention of the appellants to the contrary must be rejected.