KUMAR SHRI DIGVIJAYSINGHJI HAMIRSINLIJI Vs. MANJI SAVDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises questions of interpretation of certain provisions of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act 1951 (Act No. XXV of 1951). On June 1, 1947 Narendrasinghji the then ruler of the Virpur State granted certain agricultural lands situate within the State to the appellant, his paternal uncle. On February 11, 1948 Narendra-Singhji and the appellant effected an exchange under which the appellant returned the lands at Matiya and Guda to Narendrasinghji and in lieu thereof was granted certain lands in Kharedi. The lands in Kharedi are the subject matter of dispute in this litigation. On February 17, 1948 the grant was recorded in the "Hak Patrak" of the Virpur State. On March 8, 1948 the administration of the Virpur State was assumed by the United State of Saurashtra. The grant to the appellant was questioned by the Saurashtra Government. Thereafter at a conference called the Jamnagar Conference, it was arranged between Narendrasinghji and the Government of India that the lands in Kharedi should be regarded as lawfully granted to the appellant subject to the condition that the grantee would not evict the cultivators from the land. The arrangement was set out in a letter dated November 2, 1949 from the officer on special duty (Integration) Political Department, to the Secretary, Revenue Department, United State of Saurashtra. The letter stated:

(2.) The appellant then applied to the High Court of Bombay at Rajkot under Art. 227 of the Constitution challenging the correctness of the order of the Revenue Tribunal. The High Court dismissed the application. It held that the conditions incorporated in the letter of November 2, 1949 having been accepted by the appellant enured for the benefit of the tenants under Section 18 of the Act. It also held that the rights of the appellant as Girasdar were restricted by the notification under Section 2 (15) of the Act declaring him to be a "Girasdar" and the appellant was bound by those restrictions. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant under a certificate granted by the High Court.

(3.) It is not disputed that the Government of India had the power to impose upon the appellant the conditions incorporated in the letter dated November 2, 1949 and that the appellant is bound by them. The Government could refuse to recognise the grant made to the appellant by the ruler of the Virpur State and to annul the grant. Had the Government annulled the grant, the annulment would have been an act of State and could not be questioned before the municipal tribunals (see State of Saurashtra v. Jamadar Mohammad Abdulla, (1962) 3 SCR 970 = (AIR 1962 SC 445) ). Instead of annulling the grant the Government elected to confirm it subject to the conditions incorporated in the letter dated November 2, 1949. The appellant accepted the grant subject to those conditions and is bound by them.