AMBABAI JANHAVIBAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were the Inamdars of two Inam villages Vinehur and Sayakhedc in Niphad Taluka. The Inams were abolished by the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1952. In each of the two villages the Inamdars were in actual possession of some Kuran lands. These lands were not sown or cultivated, but grass grew naturally in these lands. The Inamdars used to graze their cattle on these lands and they also used to sell the grass and realised income from it. As the lands were in possession of the petitioners, they were shown as the occupants of the lands. The Collector subsequently felt that they had wrongly been shown as occupants, as in his opinion the lands vested in Government under Section 7 of the Act. A mutation entry was, therefore, made deleting the names of the petitioners. This was objected to by the petitioners. An inquiry was then held under Section 37(2) of the Land Revenue Code in order to decide whether the lands vested in the Government under Section 7 of the Act. The Mamlatdar held that as the lands were, uncultivated lands, they vested in Government. This order has been confirmed in appeal by the Deputy Collector and subsequently by the Additional Collector and also by the Revenue Tribunal.

(2.) SUB -section (2) of Section 5 of the Act is in the following terms: (a) An inamdar in respect of the inam land in his actual possession or in possession of a person holding from him other than an inferior holder, referred to in Clause (b) below, or (b) an inferior holder holding inam land on payment of annual assessment only, shall primarily be liable to the State Government for the payment of land revenue due in respect of such land held by him and shall be entitled to all the rights and shall be liable to all obligations in respect of such land as an occupant under the Code or the rules made there under or any other law for the time being in force. This sub -section applies to lands, which on the appointed date, that is, the date on which the Act came into force, were in the possession of the Inamdar or of a person holding from him other than an inferior holder or of an inferior holder. Such lands do not vest in the State Government, but are to be held by the Inamdar or the inferior holders as occupants under the Land He -venue Code. The sub -section does not make any exception in the case of uncultivated lands.

(3.) THE question, which arises for determination, is whether the lands in dispute, in which grass grows naturally but which were in the possession of the petitioners on the appointed date, vest in the State Government as uncultivated lands under Section 7. Mr. Vaidya., the learned advocate for the petitioners, has contended that as the petitioners were making use of these lands and were realising income by selling the grass which grew thereon, the lands cannot be said to have been uncultivated. We would have found it. difficult to accept this argument, since it is admitted that no agricultural operations were carried out on the lands for the purpose of raising or growing grass on the lands. It is, however, not necessary for us to decide this point in these applications, because even assuming that the lands were uncultivated lands, it seems to us that they would not vest in the State Government by reason of the provisions of Section 5.