SAYED RAHMANMIYA MUSTAFAMIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Special Civil Application and Special Civil Application Nos. 695 794 861 930 931 1017 588 and 949 of 1963 and Nos. 168 811 812 and 65 of 1964 involve identical facts and common questions of law and can therefore be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. Special Civil Application Nos. 588 of 1963 and 168 of 1964 however raise an additional question which we propose to deal separately in this judgment. The facts in all these petitions being similar it is not necessary to recite them from all the petitions and it will be enough if we take the facts in Special Civil Application No. 572 of 1963 as typical for a proper appreciation of the questions raised before us.

(2.) The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 572 of 1963 was at all material times a barkhalidar and as such his rights as those of a barkhalidar were accepted first by the former Junagadh State and thereafter by the ex-Saurashtra State and cash annuity orders were issued in respect of the lands situate at Gorviali and Ranpur in the District of Junagadh in recognition of his being a barkhalidar within the meaning of the Barkhali Abolition Act 1951 The State of Saurashtra with a view to improving the economic and social conditions of the peasants and for other objects passed several ordinances the last of which was the Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance 1949 being Ordinance 41 of 1949. Thereafter the Saurashtra Agrarian Commission was appointed by the Government of India with a view to study the revenue and tenancy problems of Saurashtra and on that Commission having issued its report the State of Saurashtra enacted the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act XXV of 1951 and the Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition Act XXVI of 1951 abolishing thereunder the girasdari and barkhali tenures. Both the Acts were reserved for the consideration of the President and have duly received his assent. The two Acts were brought into operation on September 1 1951 by a notification dated August 18 1951

(3.) The petitioner being a barkhalidar on the commencement of the Barkhali Abolition Act all his rights and interests in the agricultural lands comprised in the aforesaid two villages of Gorviali and Ranpur came to an end and vested in the State of Saurashtra under sec. 5 of the Act. Under the provisions of that Act the petitioner became entitled to get a cash annuity in accordance with the provisions of secs. 18 and 19 and as prescribed by that Act. By a public notice dated July 12 1952 the Mahalkari of Bhesan Taluka published the rates of assessments in respect of the several barkhali and girasdari villages including the villages of Gorviali and Ranpur. These rates of assessment were published by the Mahalkari under the provisions of sec. 44 of the Land Reforms Act 1951 and sec. 19 of the Barkhali Abolition Act of 1951. The rates of assessment published by the Mahalkari in respect of the village Gorviali were Rs. 4-7-6 per acre and in respect of Ranpur Rs. 3-10-1 per acre. These rates were fixed by the Mahalkari under the provisions of sec. 19 and following the principles and procedure laid down in rules 83 83 and 84 of the Barkhali Abolition Rules framed by the Saurashtra Government under power reserved to them under the Act. Thereafter the petitioners tenants in Gorviali and Ranpur applied to the Mamlatdar for occupancy certificates in respect of lands of which they were the tenants and the Mamlatdar after an enquiry as prescribed by the Act and the Rules passed orders specifying therein assessment of occupancy holdings as required by sec. 12 of the Act. That order was challenged in appeal and in revision on issues other than the assessments specified therein and the cases of the tenants of Gorviali were finally decided on January 3 1955 in Revision Applications Nos. B. A. 133 to 142 by the Revenue Tribunal and the cases of the tenants of Ranpur were finally decided in appeal by the Deputy Collector Northern Division Junagadh against whose order no revision was filed. As aforesaid neither in these appeals nor in the revisions the tenants challenged the rates of assessment fixed by the Mahalkari and according to the petitioner those rates of assessment became therefore final and conclusive for the purposes of the Act. As prescribed by the Abolition Rules the Mamlatdar caused to be entered into the statement of particulars in Form VII particulars of cases and orders passed on the applications of tenants and among the other particulars the assessment of occupancy holding and the amount of cash annuity payable to the petitioner were also entered. On January 30 1956 the Mamlatdar issued two cash annuity payment orders in the prescribed form in respect of the said two villages and according to the petitioner he therefore became entitled to draw cash annuity from the treasury on February 1 1952 and every year thereafter on that date until the last annuity due thereunder was paid to him. There is no dispute that until February 1 1962 the petitioner was permitted to draw his cash annuity from year to year as set out in the said cash annuity payment orders.