BRIJCHANDRA GORDHANDAS JAGIRDAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question which arises for determination in this petition is as to the true nature and character of inam granted by the British Government to the ancestors of the petitioner on 25th April 1806. The original Sanad under which the inam was granted was in Urdu but an English translation of the Sanad was produced before the District Deputy Collector and it was accepted as a correct translation by both sides at all stages of the proceeding including the appeal before the Revenue Tribunal. Before us Mr. B. R. Sompura on behalf of the State attempted to argue that this translation was incorrect in a material particular and produced before us another translation which was an official translation and which too was on the record of case but we do not think we can refer to that translation as that was not the translation relied upon before the Revenue Tribunal and the case before the Revenue Tribunal as before the District Deputy Collector proceeded on the commonly accepted basis that the other translation was the correct translation though we may point out that in our view the difference between the two translations is not very material and does not affect the decision of the question before us. Taking as our basis the translation which was accepted by both sides before the Revenue Tribunal as the correct translation the Sanad was in the following terms:

(2.) The main question which arises for determination in the petition is whether the petitioner as Inamdar is entitled to compensation for abolition of his interest in the inam under sec. 17 of the Act. In order to arrive at a proper determination of this question it is necessary to refer to a few provisions of the Act. The Act was passed by the Legislature in implementation of its policy of agrarian reform and it was enacted as its long title and preamble show to abolish personal inams in the State of Bombay. Sec. 2(1)(e) defines personal inam to mean:

(3.) It was common ground between the parties that if the inam was a grant of total or partial exemption from payment of land revenue only sec. 17 sub-sec. (5) would apply and the petitioner would not be entitled to claim any compensation for abolition of the inam since the only effect of the abolition would be to make the inam village subject to the payment of full assessment. But the contention of the petitioner was that the inam was not a grant of total or partial exemption from payment of land revenue The inam was argued the petitioner a grant of land revenue of Majigaon village and since the right of the petitioner to collect and appropriate such land revenue was abolished the petitioner was entitled to compensation computed in accordance with the provisions of sec. 6A. The State on the other hand urged that the inam was not a grant of land revenue but grant of partial exemption from payment of land revenue (partial because a quit-rent of Rs. 6 per year was payable by the petitioner) and sec. 17 sub-sec. (5) therefore precluded the petitioner from claiming any compensation from the State. The dispute between the parties thus centred round the question whether the inam was a grant of land revenue or a grant of partial exemption from payment of land revenue. The determination of this question depends on the true nature and character of the grant and for that purpose it is necessary to look at the language of the Sanad.