RAHIMBHAI VALI PARBIDIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) xxx xxx xxx.

(2.) On abolition of Service Inam with effect from and on the appointed day, all service inams have been deemed to have been abolished and all incidents appertaining thereto have been deemed to have been extinguished, notwithstanding anything contained in any law, usage, settlement, grant, sanad or order. It is only by virtue of Section 5 (2) that a service inam land resumed under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 5 has to be regranted to the holder on payment of occupancy price equal to six times the amount of full assessment of such land within five years from the appointed day and the holder shall be deemed to be an occupant in respect of such land and shall primarily be liable to pay land revenue to the State Government in accordance with the provisions of the Code and the rules made there under. In the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 5, it is specifically stated that if the holder fails to pay the occupancy price within the period of five years as provided in Section 5, he shall be deemed to be unauthorisedly occupying the land and shall be liable to be summarily ejeced in accordance with the provisions of the Code. In sub-section (3) of Section 5 it is provided that even the occupancy of land regranted under sub-seciton (2) shall not be transferable or partible by metes and bounds without the previous sanction of the Collector and except on payment of such amount as the State Government may by general or special order determine. In view of these provisions, the State Government and the Collector were justified in holding that since the holder had not paid the occupancy price equal to six times, for regrant of land, the land continued to vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances and that the holder never became the occupant. Since the holder was not an occupant, there was no question of regularising the transfer effected by him because he was deemed to be unauthorisedly occupying the land and was liable to be summarily ejected under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the said Act. The impugned orders are therefore made in accordance with law and in lawful exercise of the powers of the revisional and appellate authorities warranting no interference by this Court.

(3.) xxx xxx xxx.