PRATAPSINHJI NARANSINHJI Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the holder of 17 villages which are collectively known as the "patdi Estate"; some of these villages are situate in the Viramgaum Taluka of the Ahmedabad District. The petitioner claims to hold the Estate by virtue of a resolution passed by the Government of Bombay dated 11-12-1903. On 14-5-1951, the Government of Bombay issued a, notification under Section 44 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, assuming management of the Patdi Estate. By the operation of Section 45 of that Act the estate vested. in the State Government. The Government of Bombay appointed the Mamlatdar, Viramggum Taluka. to be the manager of the estate. In the month of August 1951, the manager published in the official gazette a notice calling upon all persons having claims against the Estate to notify the some in writing to the manager. In pursurance to that notification several claims were lodged with the manager. Even though the claims were required to be lodged within two months from the date of the publication, it appears that claim of the Saurasthra State, as it then was, was lodged on 3-3-1953 by a letter No. PD/inv-29 (1) addressed to the Manager. The claim of the Saurashtra Government was for Rs. 11,75,000/-asainat the Patdi Darbar, and it was requested by the letter that the claim may be considered in the liquidation scheme prepared by the Manager for Government sanction and payment may be made accordingly. It was stated in the letter that an agreement was arrived at between the Saurashtra Government and the Darbar Saheb of Patdi in regard to his private property consequent upon the integration of the Patdi Estate with the State of Saurashtra and in accordance with that agreement, the State Government of Saurashtra had agreed to consider the Patdi villages laying in Bombay State as Talukdari villages entirely and the Darbar Saheb had agreed to pay Rs. 12 lacs to the State of Saurashtra in respect of the share of the Saurashtra State in these villages as also in other immoveable properties of the Patdi Estate situate in Bombay, and that the Patdi Darbar Saheb had paid Rs. 25,000/- towards the amount due by him and had failed and neglected to pay the balance though repeatedly admitting liability for the same.

(2.) IT appears that the Manager considered this claim of the Saurashtra State together with the other claims made before him and prepared on 12-3-1956 a scheme under Section 54 of the Act which included the claims of the Saurashtra Government for Rs. 11,75,000/-, The Manager, prepared a scheme and submitted the same to the Collector of Ahmedabad for his sanction. The Collector by letter dated 18-7-1956 informed the Darbar Saheb of Patdi that 31-7-1956 was fixed as the date for hearing the claim of the Saurashtra Government against the Patdi Estate and he was requested the latter to appear with the necessary documents. On 31-7-1956 the Darbar Saheb whom I will hereafter refer to as the petitioner appeared before the Collector and raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the claim of the Saurashtra Government. The petitioner says that he contended that the Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain and proceed to investigate the claim of the Saurashtra Government and that the same 'was hopelessly out of time' and was accordingly not entertainable. The petitioner further -says that the Collector disregarded the contentions raised by him and directed him to file his reply to the claim of the Saurashtra Government on or before 20-8-1956. It appears that the reply of the petitioner was not filed on or before 20-8-1956. But the proceedings could not be continued before the Collector on account of local disturbances in Ahmedabad. The petitioner then applied by this application for a writ in the nature of certiorari or other writ or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution against the State of Bombay or the Collector of Ahmedabad or the Manager, Patdi Estate, calling for the records of the case and after making inquiries and looking into the same and going into the question of legality thereof to quash the proceedings commenced by the Collector in connection with that claim and to set aside the directions given by the State of Bombay to the Collector of Ahmedabad to entertain the claim and enter into the liquidation scheme and quash the report of the Manager proposing the inclusion of the claim of the State of Saurashtra in the liquidation scheme.

(3.) THE application has been resisted on behalf of the State of Bombay, the Collector of Ahmedabad and the Manager.