THAKORE SAHEBKHANJI HEMATKHANJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special Civil Application No. 295 of 1962 and Special Civil Application No. 355 of 1962 raise common questions of law that would govern the facts of the two cases. They have been argued before me at the same time and the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties in both are the same and they have requested that the matters may be dealt with together and disposed of by one judgment I find that there will be no difficulty in doing so. I shall however deal with certain set of facts of the two cases separately wherever they require separate consideration.

(2.) Special Civil Application No. 295 of 1962 deals with the estate of the ex-Thakore of Bihora Taluka Sankheda District Baroda. Special Civil application No.355 of 1962 concerns the estate of the ex-Thakore of Bhilodia Taluka Dabhoi District Baroda. It is alleged by both the Thakores that the merger agreements were made by them and the Union of India on the 10th June 1948 by which the administration of the said estates passed on to the Central Government and the estates ultimately merged in the Province of Bombay. After the said merger the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act 1953 came to be passed and was put into effect on the 1st of August 1954. Thereafter these Thakores and the other Thakores concerned had raised the question of the applicability of the said Act with regard to their estates and was challenged by them by filing suits in the Civil Courts. The Thakore of Bihora filed a Civil Suit No. 918 of 1955 in the Civil Court (S.D.) Baroda and the Thakore of Bhilodia had filed Civil Suit No. 1225 of 1955 in the same Court. We are not concerned with the other proceedings taken by the Thakores. These suits inter alia sought a declaration that their estates could not be considered as Jagirs and further that they should not be treated as Jagirdars and therefore the Act could not apply to their case. Both the suits were dismissed and both of them filed appeals in the District Court at Baroda. These appeals also were dismissed. Being aggrieved by those decisions both these petitioners filed the second appeals before this High Court and these appeals are pending. In the meantime compensation proceedings in respect of both these estates were started and both the petitioners filed their respective claims under various heads available to them under the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act. I shall refer to this Act as the Act in this judgment. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 295 of 1962 had claimed Rs. 45754/in all and he was awarded Rs. 67820. Being dissatisfied with this award he filed an appeal to the Revenue Tribunal. That appeal was rejected except that the award was modified by giving Rs. 987-4-0 more than the award made by the Compensation Officer. So far as the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 355 of 1962 is concerned also a particular award was made and being dissatisfied he also approached in appeal the Revenue Tribunal wherein also a slight modification was made and the rest of the claim was rejected. Both of them being dissatisfied with the judgment of the Revenue Tribunal and the Compensation Officer have tiled these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Before I go to deal with the contentions raised by the learned advocate on behalf of the petitioners on merits on questions of fact I shall deal with a common law point which Mr. Pradhan raised on behalf of his clients. the petitioners. He submitted that the Revenue Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the two appeals because of the bar of sec. 10 of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act. He argued that the jurisdiction of the Revenue Tribunal to decide all appeal would be barred when the matter questioned before it is sub-justice in a Court of law. He urged that the vires of the Act was challenged or in other words the point that the Jagirs Abolition Act did not apply to their estates was raised by the present petitioners in the compensation proceedings and this being a matter which was already sub judice as the said point was agitated in the Civil Court and which was the subject-matter of the second appeals pending in the High Court. These being prior proceedings sec. 10 of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act bars the jurisdiction of the Revenue Tribunal to proceed with the appeals. Section 10(1) reads as follows :-