STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. NARAYAN SHANKAR HASABNIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been referred to a Division Bench by a Single Judge of this Court as it involves interpretation of some of the provisions of the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950 (Bombay Act, No. LX of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). In both the Courts below a decree for injunction has been passed against the State of Maharashtra restraining them from executing a claim notice Exhibit 71 for the amount of Rs. 3,801. 41 P. As the Courts below have held that the plaintiff-respondent is not liable to pay the amount, the State of Maharashtra has filed this second appeal for obtaining an adjudication that under the provisions of the Act as well as the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code" ). which applies to all the resumed lands as a result of the implementation of the Act, In Madras in the position of the plaintiff would always be liable to pay the assessment. As this is a point of some importance, As this is a point of some importance, the appeal has been referred to the Division Bench.

(2.) THE facts which must be noted for the purpose of understanding the dispute between the parties are these: Originally, plaintiff was admittedly the Inamdar of the Village Tilgaon in Thana District. For a few years after the Act came into force, the Revenue Department in the Thana District had no clear information at all about the nature of the grant in favour of the plaintiff. It is now undisputed that the grant in favour of the plaintiff's family was not a personal Inam but was a Paragana Inam. It is also undisputed that the village Tilgaon was an unsurveyed village till it was resumed under the Act. Under the Paragana Inam came to be abolished with effect from 1st May, 1951, as a result of the passing of the Act by the then State of Bombay. After about three years, the Mamlatdar Wada issued a letter (Ex. 58 ) dated 23rd January, 1954, informing the plaintiff that all his lands have been resumed by the State under the provisions of the Act and they are to be re-granted to him on condition that the plaintiff pays six times the assessment by way of occupancy price. This payment had got to be made on or before 30th April. 1954 and if this was not done he would be removed from the land. Within a couple of mothers thereafter. the Mamlatdar Wada, issued a notice (Ex. 52) dated 18th March, 1954, informing the plaintiff that he should not collect any revenue from the Khatedars direct as his personal Inam had been abolished from the 1st of August, 1953. This led to further correspondence in due course. There was lull for about 3 years or more and in 1957-58 considerable correspondence took place between the plaintiff on the one hand and the Mamlatdar and the Prant Officer on the other. The plaintiff pointed out to the Revenue Officers that his was not a personal Inam as was assumed in Ex. 52 but a Paragaba Inam, not liable to render any service and as such, he was obliged to pay only six times the assessment by way of occupancy price. The further correspondence shows that the plaintiff never accepted the offer of regrant with conditions attached to it. As a result of this correspondence, the plaintiff by his letter (EX. 54) dated 26th November 1957, informed the Mamlatdar Wada that he had deposited an amount equivalent to six times the assessment, namely, Rs. 1,887. -. 6-0 as also Rs. 489-9-0 by way of Muksan as contemplated by the Code and thus credited in the Treasury a total mount of Rs. 2,373-15-0. This information was followed by a letter (Ex. 56) dated 9th February 1958 issued by the Prant Officer in favour of the plaintiff. The Prant Officer informed that the plaintiff. The Prant Officer informed that the plaintiff was a Paragana Watandar whose lands were resumed under Section 3 of the Act and the plaintiff having paid the occupancy price at six times the full assessment into the Wada Sub-Treasury as required by Section 4 of the Act, the lands mentioned in Column 3 of Schedule 'a' attached to the order were re-granted to the plaintiff who was the Watan-holder on new importable and inalienable tenure under Section 4 (1) and 4 (2) subject to three conditions. The first condition was that the grant shall be subject to the right of public, if any, that may be established under Section 4a of the Act. The second condition was that the right over the trees in the land regranted as mentioned in Column 3 of the Schedule 'a' attached to the Order is reserved with the Government. And the third condition was that an agreement in the prescribed form shall be executed by the grantee (the plaintiff) within a month from the date of receipt of the order with additional conditions of the order before the Mamlatdar Wada.

(3.) THIS order of the Prant Officer led to voluminous correspondence, during which the Mamlatdar realised that the village was formerly unserveyed and as a result of fresh survey conducted the new assessment was fixed at a much higher rate than before. Since six times the full assessment was payable by the Inamdar and since the Mamlatdar felt that the new assessment of the plaintiff's land was Rs. 970-9-0, he sent a telegram dated 1st May, 1958, calling upon the plaintiff to state by wire or telegram whether he was willing to pay the differential occupancy price of Rs. 3,936-10-6, that is to say, the total occupancy price of Rs. 5,824-0-6 minus the payment of Rs. 1,887-6-0 as deposited by the plaintiff earlier. It may be very briefly noted that the plaintiff has never paid the difference which he was called upon to pay by Mamlatdar, nor has he every executed any agreement in favour of the State. The total payment made by the plaintiff is confined to Rs, 1,887-6-0, Which is six time the earlier Judi amount and not six times the full assessment of the land. The plaintiff all the while informed the Revenue Officer that he was not willing to accept the re-grant on terms and conditions proposed in Ex. 56. In fact, the plaintiff insisted upon three further conditions under which alone he would be willing to accept the re-grant. His first condition was that all the trees which in fact formed a forest must be re-granted to him and shall not be excluded from the grant. The second condition was that there were more lands of his ownership than shown in the Schedule 'a' and all of them must be included in the re-grant. His third condition was that after having prohibited the plaintiff from making any recoveries from the Khatedars as per Ex. 52 with effect the Khatedars as per Ex. 52 with effect from 1 st of April, 1953, the State Government effected recoveries through its Officer during the entire period of five years from 1-5-1951 to 31-4-1956 and therefore unless a clear account was rendered to him in regard to the recoveries made by the Government and credit given to the plaintiff for those recoveries, he would not be able to make payment. He however showed his readiness and willingness to pay whatever may be found due from him after the account is so rendered. The matter merely rested at this stage and there has been no actual re-grant as contemplated by the provisions of the Act as also the Rules made thereunder by the State.