STATE OF BOMBAY Vs. SHIVABALAK GAURISHANKAR DUBE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHAT is the scope and effect of the provisions contained in Section 65 read with Section 83 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (No. LXVII of 1948) (hereinafter called the Act), that is the short question which arises for our decision in this appeal. The four respondents are the owners of certain agricultural lands in Deokhope in Taluka Palghar in Maharashtra, On June 23, 1951, a notice was served by the appellant, State of Bombay (now Maharashtra), inviting the attention of the respondents to the fact that the agricultural lands of which they were the owners had remained fallow since 1948 -49, and intimating to them that the appellant State would resume management of the said lands under Section 65 of the Act unless the respondents took steps to bring them under cultivation in the following agricultural -season. The respondents were told that in case they wanted to bring the said lands into cultivation, they should send intimation of their intention to do so within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. It appears that later, an enquiry was made under the orders of the Dy. Collector as a result of which on December 30, 1951, he passed an order under Section 65 directing that the lands should be resumed by the Government for cultivation. Thereafter, representations were made by the respondents to the Dy. Collector as a result of which about 8 acres and 30 ghunthas of land were released on the ground that the owners had taken steps to cultivate that portion of the lands in pursuance of the direction given to them by the earlier notice. The order passed by the Dy. Collector in respect of other lands remained unaffected. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 approached the Collector by his application dated March 24, 1952. This application was, however, rejected. The respondents then moved the Revenue Department, but that effort also failed. That is why the present suit was filed by them on December 23, 1953 for a declaration that the order passed by the Dy. Collector on December 30, 1951 was illegal and void, and that it could not dispossess them of the lands which belonged to them. As a consequence of the declaration thus claimed by them, the respondents asked for a decree for possession and mesne profits against the appellant.

(2.) THE appellant disputed the respondents' claim. It urged that the suit as framed was barred under Section 65(1) and Section 85 of the Act. On the merits, the appellant challenged the correctness of the allegations made by the respondents. It was averred by the appellant that the requisite enquiry had been duly and properly made and the impugned order was passed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act. According to the appellant, civil Court has no jurisdiction to consider the propriety or reasonableness of the conclusion reached by the Dy. Collector before he passed the impugned order.

(3.) THE respondents then carried the matter before the High Court by an appeal, and on their behalf three contentions were raised before the High Court. It was first argued that the lands in respect of which the impugned declaration was made were not lands as defined by the Act, and so, the relevant provisions of the Act were inapplicable. It was then urged that before the Government could exercise its powers under Section 65 of the Act, a duty was cast on it to be satisfied that the lands had remained uncultivated for. a period of two years before their management was assumed; and this condition had not been satisfied, because delegation by the State Government to subordinate officers of its duty to satisfy itself, or its power to make the declaration, was not justified in law. It was also contended that since the satisfaction had to be by the authority who was competent to make the declaration, he could not delegate any part of his function and duty in that behalf and the said authority had to hold the enquiry himself.