DHANVANTHKUMARIBA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the legal representatives of Padhiar Jagdevsinghji Ramsinghji who was ex-ruler of erstwhile State of Umeta which comprised of five villages including Umeta. According to him, the lands of these villages belonged to him. In the year 1948, the State of Umeta was merged into India under the Merger Agreement dated 24.05.1948. The land bearing Survey No. 410 which is the disputed land is situated at village Umeta. By virtue of Merger Agreement, this land was also given to ex-ruler as Talukdar. The land bearing Survey No. 410 comprised of large area - 742 acres and 32 guntas. The Bombay Talukdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949 (for short Rs. the Act) came into force on 15.8.1950. According to the respondent-State, the said land bearing Survey No. 410 vested in the Government by virtue of Section 6 of the Act. The Government transferred 560 acres out of this land to the District Panchyat, Kheda. Hence, the ex-ruler filed Civil Suit O.S. No. 5 of 1970 contending that the transfer of the land by the Government in favour of the District panchyat was wrong as it belonged to him and Government had no authority to transfer the land when the said land had not vested in the Government. In that suit, reliefs of declaration, possession and permanent injunction were sought. The trial court decreed the said suit. The first appeal filed by the respondent against the decree of the trial court was allowed by learned Single Judge of the High Court, reversing the decree passed by the trial court. The original plaintiff filed LPA before the High Court questioning the validity and correctness of the order made by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench of the High Court, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the appeal concurring with the findings recorded by learned Single Judge. Hence, this appeal by the legal representatives of the original plaintiff, as already stated above.

(2.) The State of Bombay on 1.4.1952 took possession of about 30 acres out of the land in Survey No. 410 from the possession of the plaintiff on the ground that it was a waste land and, therefore, vested in the Government under Section 6 of the Act. Challenging the action of the Government, the original plaintiff filed regular Suit No. 185/1953 against the State seeking declaration that he was the owner of 30 acres of land which was part of Survey No. 410; it was not waste land; it did not vest in the Government and that the order dated 1.4.1952 vesting the land in the Government was null and void. When the said suit was pending, Mahendrsinhji, brother of the original plaintiff, made a claim of ownership to the extent of 147 acres and 15 guntas of land in the same Survey No. 410. The State Government after making enquiry under Section 37(2) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code by its order dated 27.11.1958 held that Mahendersinghji was the owner of that piece of land measuring 147 acres 15 guntas. By the same order, it also declared that the remaining 590 acres and 30 guntas in Survey No. 410 was a waste land and, therefore, it vested in the Government. The trial court decreed the said regular Civil Suit No. 185/53 and declared that the original plaintiff was the full owner of 30 acres of land and ordered for delivery of possession to him. In the judgment, the trial court recorded that five villages in the State of Umeta were private properties of the original plaintiff. The trial court also recorded a finding that the original plaintiff was the owner of the Rs. Wanta situated in Umeta and that Survey No. 410 formed part of the Rs. Wanta of Umeta. The Government of Bombay filed first appeal No. 60 of 1960, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in the said suit No. 185/53. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal on 16.7.1962. The State Government pursued the matter further by filing second appeal in the High Court of Gujarat. Pursuant to the decree passed by the trial court, possession of 30 acres of land was handed over to the original plaintiff on 5.12.1969 in Execution Application No. 34/69. The High Court by its judgment dated 12.3.1970 dismissed the second appeal also.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties in Regular Civil Suit No. 185/53, as many as 17 issues were framed. Issue Nos. 4 and 6 read as under:-