JAMSETJEE JEEJEEBHOY Vs. BAPURAO KRISHNAJI BHONSALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was initially filed by the three Trustees of a Trust known as "Jehangir Hormusjee Cama Trust" (referred to hereafter as "the Trust"), constituted under a Deed of Settlement dated 21st Oct. 1918. The original 1st petitioner was also a beneficiary under the Trust. During the pendency of the petition, the original 1st and 2nd petitioners died and in their place the present newly-added Trustees, viz., petitioners 1 (a) to 1 (c) were brought on record. The 1st respondent is the Deputy Collector, Inami and Special Tenures Abolition Branch, Bombay City. The 2nd respondent is the State of Maharashtra.

(2.) Under the Second Inami Grant dated 29th May 1828, referred to in Section 2 (xiii) of the Bombay City (Inami and Special Tenures) Abolition and Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1969 (referred to hereafter as "the Act"), the Trustees held Inami Tenure land bearing Cadastral Survey No. 150 of Parel-Sewri Division, admeasuring about 1821.91 square metres (equivalent to 2179.89 square yards), and are the superior holders within the meaning of Section 2 (xvi) of the Act. As such superior holders, the Trustees were entitled to recover land revenue in respect of these inami lands. By Section 4 (1) of the Act, with effect from the appointed day, viz. 1st Aug. 1971, the right of the Inamdar to recover land revenue in respect of the Inami land under the Second Inam Grant was extinguished and all Inami lands, etc. became liable to payment of land revenue to the State Government in accordance with the provisions of the Act and in the case of land held by the superior holders under the Second Inam Grant, the person in possession of such land and liable to pay rent and assessment to the superior holders under the terms of that grant immediately before the appointed day became primarily liable to the State Government for the payment of land revenue due in respect of such land. Under Section 5 of the Act, the Trustees were required to file a return to the Collector in respect of the said Inami land within 6 months from the appointed day, viz. 1st Aug. 1971. Section 6 provides for imposition of a penalty of Rs. 50 for failure to comply with the provisions of Section 5. Sections 11 to 13 deal with payment of compensation to the Inamdar. Section 14 deals with the method of awarding compensation to any person aggrieved by the provisions of the Act as abolishing, extinguishing, or modifying any of his rights to or interest in the property. Under that section such person was required to apply to the Collector for compensation within the prescribed period in the prescribed form. The effect of the Act was that the right of the Inamdar to recover land revenue in respect of the Inami land was extinguished in lieu whereof payment of compensation was provided under the Act. On 14th Jan. 1972, the Bombay City (Inami and Special Tenures) Abolition Rules, 1972, were published, Under Rule 4, the return under Section 5 was required to be made within 6 months from the appointed day, i.e., 1st Aug. 1971. This period was extended till 1st February 1973. Under Rule 12, the application for compensation under Section 14 was required to be made within one year from the date of the commencement of the Rules, i. e., by 14th Jan. 1973.

(3.) On 10th Sept. 1974, the Trustees submitted their application under Section 14 of the Act claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,83,157 and also prayed for condonation of delay (viz. of a year and eight months) in making that application, 'owing to unavoidable circumstances'. On 11th Sept. 1974, the consultants of the Trust also addressed a letter to the Deputy Collector (viz. the 1st respondent) enclosing therewith in duplicate in the prescribed form the claim of the Trust for compensation. By this letter it was requested that the delay in the submission of the claim be condoned as the same was due to "unavoidable circumstances". On 3rd Oct. 1974 the 1st respondent issued a show-cause notice calling upon the Trustees to explain why their application should not be summarily dismissed as it was time-barred. Thereupon on 5th Oct. 1974, the consultants of the Trust addressed a letter to the 1st respondent stating that a representation was being made by the Trust to Government for granting of extension of time so that the application of the Trust for compensation under Section 14 would not be time-barred. By this letter the Deputy Collector was requested to differ action until Government passed its orders on the representation to be made by the Trust. On 10th Oct. 1974 the Trustees through their consultants submitted to the 1st respondent an amended claim for compensation under Section 14 in the sum of Rs. 4,68,371 based on the correct area of the land, viz. 2179 square yards. It was pointed out to the 1st respondent that in the original application dated 10th Sept. 1974 the area was mistakenly shown as 1780 square yards. The compensation came to Rs. 4,68,371 and the 1st respondent was once again requested to condone the delay which was "owing to unavoidable circumstances". On 14th Oct. 1974 the Trustees addressed a letter to the Minister for Revenue, Rehabilitation and Khar Lands, asking for condonation of delay in filing the application for compensation under Section 14 of the Act. By this letter the petitioners also asked for extension of the period allowed under Rule 12 for submitting the application for compensation. The reasons why the application for compensation could not be filed within the prescribed period of one year were set out by the Trustees in this letter. On 29th Oct. 1974, the 1st respondent addressed a letter to the Trust fixing the hearing of the petitioners' application for compensation on 8th Nov. 1974 and stated that a decision regarding the delay in making the same would be taken at a later date. At the hearing on 8th Nov. 1974 the 1st respondent directed the Trust's consultants to file certified extracts from the City Survey Register, which was one on 5th Dec. 1974. On 9th Dec. 1974 a letter was addressed by the Revenue and Forest Departments to the Trustees to the effect that their representation dated 14th Oct. 1'974 was receiving the attention of Government. On 10th Dec. 1974 the 1st respondent addressed a letter to the Trust's consultants stating that if Government order condoning delay was not produced, before him within 15 days, the Trust's application for compensation would be dismissed. Thereupon on 16th Dec. 1974 the consultants addressed a letter to the 1st respondent requesting him to stay his hands as the matter was receiving the attention of Government as stated in the letter dated 9th Dec. 1974 of the Revenue and Forest Department. On 26th Sept. 1975 the 1st respondent passed his impugned order dismissing the Trust's application for compensation on the ground that the delay had not so far been condoned (meaning thereby, by Government).