STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. THAKOR DOLATSINH JIVANSINH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved is one of interpretation of secs. 5 and 6 of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act 1949 (herein after referred to as the Act) which came into force on August 15 1950 The question is common in all these appeals and therefore it can be disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The relevant facts shortly stated are that the lands in dispute formed part of the former Vaghpur Taluqdari Estate. The respondents are the original plaintiffs and their case was that the suit lands were given to them as tenants for cultivation in May 1947 and the day on which the Act came into force they held the suit lands as tenants. On the Act coming into force an inquiry under sec. 37 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) was undertaken by the Mamlatdar who held that the relation of the plaintiffs with the Taluqdar was that of landlord and tenant since May 1947 and therefore the suit lands did not vest in the State Government under sec. 6 of the Act. The Collector to whom the Mamlatdar forwarded the papers in exercise of his suo motu powers revised the order and held that even though the plaintiffs held the land as tenants from the Taluqdar yet as the suit lands remained uncultivated for three years continuously immediately before the Act came into force the said lands vested in the State Government under sec. 6 of the Act subject to the plaintiffs rights as tenants. Being dissatisfied with this order of the Collector the plaintiffs preferred revision applications before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and the order the Collector was upheld by the said Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal the plaintiffs preferred Special Civil Application No. 372 of 1971 in this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution but the said application was also dismissed. Thereafter the Talati Vaghpur issued notice dated July 19 1967 under sec. 135 of the Code informing the plaintiffs that mutation in terms of the final order would be made after 30 days and the plaintiffs might file their objections if any to the said mutation within the stipulated period. By the notice the plaintiffs were also intimated that under sec. 6 of the Act the suit survey numbers would not be held by the Taluqdars and if the plaintiffs paid rent to the Government they would be considered as tenants of the suit lands. The plaintiffs contested the mutation entry stating that the suit lands had not vested in the Government that they were not liable to pay the rent to the Government as they had become owners of the land under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act etc. That the plaintiff thereafter filed civil suits for declarations that they were in possession of the suit lands for 3 years prior to the coming into force of the Act that sec. 6 of the Act was not applicable that they had become the owners of the suit land and that Talati of Prantij had on right to make the mutation as per notice dated July 19 1967 and prayed for conseqential relief of injunction against the State and its officers restraining them from enforcing the notice dated July 19 1967 The trial Court dismissed the suits and in appeals to the District Court the decrees of the trial Court were confirmed. Being aggrieved by the said decrees second appeals were filed in this Court and the learned Single Judge reversed the decrees of the Courts below and decreed the suits of the plaintiffs holding that sec. 6 of the Act applied to public property and uncultivated or unoccupied lands in possession of the Taluqdar would be covered by sec. 5 and not by sec. 6 of the Act. The suit lands were in lawful possession of the Taluqdar through the tenants. Therefore the Taluqdar was the holder of the suit lands and sec. 5 of the Act would be attracted as the said section applies to specified properties mentioned therein. Sec. 6 of the Act was subject to sec. 5 of the Act. For taking this view the learned Single Judge relied on his previous decision in Dinshawji Bamanji Dalal & Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Another 11 G.L.R. 193 and the decision in Ambabai Janhavibai v. State of Maharashtra 67 B.L.R. 291 wherein the Court construed similar provisions of the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act 1953 Against this decision of the Single Judge these Letters Patent Appeals are held and they came for hearing before the Bench consisting of D. P. Desai J. and myself and in view of conflict of decisions the Letters Patent Appeals have been referred to the Full Bench.

(3.) Secs. 5 and 6 of the Act read as under: