RATHOD BHIMJIBHAI MASRUBHAI RAJPUTND Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave from a decision of the High Court of Bombay, dated 31-3-1955, by which it dismissed with costs a writ application (No. 1100 of 1954) made by the petitioners therein, who are now appellants before us. It raises for consideration and decision a land revenue problem of some complexity, which resulted from the enactment of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949, Bombay Act LXII of 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Abolition Act). The problem is if the appellants, holders of certain lands known as "Lal-liti" lands, are liable to the State Government concerned for payment of land revenue under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (Bombay Act V of 1879), hereinafter referred to as the Revenue Code, after the enforcement of the provisions of the Abolition Act.

(2.) The problem has to be considered in the light of certain incidents of taluqdari tenures in the Ahmedabad District of Gujarat with special reference to the changes through which those tenures had gone in the past by legislation or otherwise. For the purposes of this appeal it is not necessary to give a full history of taluqdari estates in Gujarat; but it is necessary to explain what is meant by "Lal-liti" lands. We get from such books as Baden-Powell's "Land-Systems of British India" and Dandekar's "The law of Land Tenure in the Bombay Presidency", from both of which learned counsel for the parties have extensively quoted before us, a short history of the Taluqdars of Gujarat and their estates. Shortly stated, the history is this:Taluqdars of Gujarat (they were not known as Taluqdars their, because the name was given much later) originally occupied the position of Chiefs or Rulers. This was before the Mohamedan rule in Gujarat. When the Mohamedans invaded Gujarat, they found the country partitioned out into estates of large or small Chiefs, whom they forcibly deprived of all but one-fourth of their possessions, and the portion thus left took the name of 'wanta' (divided). Some 'wantas' were free of payment of rent or revenue; other 'wanta' estates paid a tribute in the shape of an "udhad jama" (fixed sum). After the Moguls came the Marathas. The accession and domination of the Marathas made no substantial difference to the position of these semi-independent chiefs, except that the annual payments varied under the Maratha rule. Then came the British, who for some time continued to realise annual payments according to past years; but very soon a significant change took place and the nature of the payment was altered, and instead of tribute, the Government assumed it to be rent or revenue. The rent or revenue was also increased by about 50 p.c. and the result was that the holders of these lands fell into pecuniary embarrassment and became impoverished and needy. A system of annual leases was then introduced:this remedy, however, proved worse than the disease, and it was sought to improve the position of the Taluqdars by legislation. It is not necessary for our purpose to refer to the details of that legislation till we come to the Gujarat Taluqdars' Act, 1888 (Bombay Act VI of 1888) which was a landmark in the history of Taluqdari tenures. We shall have occasion later to refer to some of the provisions of this Act. It is sufficient to state here that by the time the aforesaid Act was passed the Taluqdars of certain districts of Gujarat including Ahmedabad had really become mere owners of proprietary estates, who held lands directly from Government, and the Act provided, inter alia, for the revenue administration of their estates. Under the provisions of the Act, the Settlement Registers were prepared for each village, which served the purpose of the Record of Rights in those estates. In these estates, large areas of lands were granted presumably by the Taluqdars to cadets, widows of the family, and relations for maintenance, and to village servants and others, either in reward for past services or as remuneration for services to be performed. The holders of these transferred lands paid no revenue either to the Taluqdar or to Government generally. These grants fell into three categories:(i) those made prior to British rule; (ii) those made between 1818 and 1888, that is, after the introduction of British rule and before the passing of the Gujarat Taluqdars' Act, 1888; and (iii) those made after 1888. The lands thus transferred were called "Lal-liti" lands because they were recorded in red ink in the old 'faisal patrakas' and in the Settlement Registers also, they were recorded in red ink, but were shown as subject to "jama" (land revenue) liabilities of varying character. The pre-British transfers were recognised by Mr. Peile (later Sir James Peile) who was the Taluqdari Settlement Officer in 1866, and the holders of these lands generally paid no "jama". The 1818-1888 transfers were those which were not so recognised by prescription, and when these lands reverted to the Taluqdar, they became his ordinary lands liable to payment of full "jama". The post Act grants were covered by S. 31 of the Gujarat Taluqdars' Act, 1888 (see in this connection "The Land Problems of Re-organised Bombay State" by Dr. G. D. Patel, pp. 174-175).

(3.) Such, in brief, is the history of Taluqdari estates and "Lal-liti" lands, so far as that history has a bearing on the problem before us. It is necessary now to state the facts which have given rise to the present appeal. In their writ petition to the High Court, the appellants said that they were holders of "Lal-liti" lands in villages Kharad and Rajka of the Dhanduka taluq of Ahmedabad district and were enjoying the lands without payment of any "jama" (land revenue) since the pre-British rule, though the circumstances in which their predecessors originally got the lands are lost in antiquity. They said inter alia that the exemption from payment of land revenue which they had all along enjoyed was not affected by the Abolition Act or by any later legislation like the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1952 (Bombay Act 42 of 1953) and that the demand for payment of land revenue made by the State Government of Bombay for 1950-1953 was not authorised by law. In the alternative, they also said that they were not liable to any assessment of land revenue till August, 1953. Accordingly, they prayed for appropriate writs (a) quashing the demands for payment of land revenue, and (b) directing the State of Bombay, the Collector of Ahmedabad and the Revenue Officer of Dhanduka (who are now respondents before us), to forbear from taking any steps to enforce payment of land revenue for the "Lal-liti" lands held by them. A number of similar applications, presumably filed by other holders of "Lal-liti" land, were also pending in the High Court. So far as we can gather from the record before us, there were three sets of such applications. The High Court delivered its leading judgment on writ application No. 1098 of 1954 and the application of the appellants herein (No. 1100 of 1954) was dismissed with costs on the grounds given in the leading judgment. The High Court held in effect that the holders of "Lal-liti" lands were liable to payment of land revenue under S. 5 of the Abolition Act, read with the provisions of the Revenue Code, and the objections raised thereto, on their behalf were not legally valid. Having been unsuccessful in their application for a certificate under Art. 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution, the appellants applied for and obtained special leave from this Court on June29, 1955. They then preferred the present appeal.