NAVINCHANDRA BABUBHAI NAGARSHETH BAI KALAVTI JAYANTILAL MAGANLAL Vs. GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNALIN ALL THE THREE APPEALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 village 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.

(2.) 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 (1) 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. (1) unavailable in a certain case and the question is whether the appellants' claim fell within it. Now the sub-section is in these terms:

(3.) 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 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 forgo 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 themselves having been exempted from the liability to pay it over to the Government; it was rent due to the inamdars.