NARAYAN BHONDEO PIMPUTKAR Vs. LAXMAN PURSHOTTAM PIMPUTKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the decree for the possession of the land in dispute awarded in favour of Laxman Purshottam Pimputkar respondent No. 1 (hereinafter described as the respondent) has become inexecutable after the coming into force of the Gujarat Patel Watans Abolition Act, 1961 (Gujarat Act 48 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is the short question which arises for determination in this appeal brought by special leave against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court.

(2.) The appellants and the respondent belong to one family. The respondent represents the seniormost branch of the family. The family was granted Patilki Watan in a number of villages, including Soleumbha, in district Thana. The watan land situated in Soleumbha is the subject matter of the present dispute. Under the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 the person who actually performs the duty of a hereditary office for the time being is called an officiator. Purshottam, father of the respondent, was the officiator till 1921 when, because of a disqualification incurred by him, a deputy was appointed in place of Purshottam. After the death of Purshottam in 1940, the respondent became the officiator. The branch of the appellants claimed to be in possession of the watan land in dispute and some other lands under a partition effected in 1914. In 1944 the respondent moved the Government for resumption of the watan land in dispute which was in possession of the branch of the appellants. Prayer was also made by the respondent that he might be delivered possession of the land. The Government after some enquiry resumed that land by order dated October 9, 1946 and directed that possession of the same be restored to the respondent. The appellants thereafter moved the Government for reconsideration of that order. The Government on May 2, 1947 modified its previous order by directing that the appellants could continue to retain the possession of the land in dispute subject to payment of rent as might be fixed by the Government from time to time. The respondent thereupon instituted suit for a declaration that the order of the Government dated May 2, 1947 and an ancillary order dated March 1, 1949 were null, void and inoperative. Prayer was also made that the appellants should remove all obstructions and hindrances from the land in dispute and should hand over the possession of the same to the respondent. It was further prayed that the appellants should render account of the income of the land to the respondent. The suit was resisted by the appellants on the ground that the impugned orders were administrative orders and no suit could lie for setting them aside. The suits were also stated to be barred by limitation. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent. On appeal the District Judge set aside the decree in favour of the respondent. The decision of the District Judge was affirmed on second appeal by the High Court. The respondent then came up in appeal to this Court by special leave. This Court as per its judgment dated December 13, 1962, reported in (1964) 1 SCR 200 accepted the appeal of the respondent and set aside the judgments of the High Court and the District Judge and restored that of the trial court whereby decree for possession of the land in dispute had been awarded in favour of the respondent against the appellants.

(3.) In the meanwhile in 1960 the State of Bombay was bifurcated and the land in dispute which was earlier part of Bombay State became part of the State of Gujarat. On April 1, 1963 the Act came into force. On July 19, 1966 the respondent filed an application to execute the decree for possession of the land which had been awarded in his favour. Objection was then taken by the appellants that the decree awarded in favour of the respondent had become inexecutable because of the coming into force of the Act. This objection found favour with the executing court which consequently dismissed the execution application. Appeal filed by the respondent against the order of the executing court was dismissed by the District Judge Bulsar. The respondent thereafter filed second appeal before the Gujarat High Court. High Court came to the conclusion that the respondent was entitled to execute the decree for possession of the land obtained by him against the appellants. Appeal of the respondent was accordingly allowed. The appellants have thereafter come up in appeal to this Court by special leave.