VITHAL KONDHALKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions involve a common question of law relating to the real meaning and interpretation of sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Abolition Act) and the right of the Collector under section 59 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Code). While dealing with each case, we will narrate the detailed facts and circumstances relevant to that particular case. Suffice it to point out in a broad manner as to how this dispute reached this Court and what points are involved.

(2.) All the lands, which are involved in the above petitions were formerly inferior watans before the said watan was abolished by the Abolition Act of 1958. The broad scheme of the Abolition Act is that on the appointed day, notwithstanding anything in any usage, custom, settlement, grant agreement sanad, or in any decree or order of a Court or in the existing watan law, all the inferior village watans stood abolished, and all incidents, including the right to hold office and watan property, the right to levy customary fees or perquisites in money or in kind, and the liability to render service, appertaining to the said watans were also thereby extinguished. Subject to the provisions of sections 5, 6 and 9 all watan land stood resumed and was thereafter subject to the payment of the land revenue under the provisions of the Code and the rules made thereunder as it were an unalienated land.

(3.) Prima facie, therefore, subject to the provisions of sections 5, 6 and 9, all inferior watans stood abolished and all the lands pertaining to this watan stood resumed to Government and became in law, on the appointed day, the unalienated Government land. However, the same Abolition Act simultaneously provided for regrant of the watan land. Except where orders are passed under sections 6 and 9, normally under section 5 the watan land was to be regranted to the original Watandar himself. Section 5 has three sub-sections. Sub-sections (1) and (3) are relevant for our purpose. The watan lands were of two types; some were subjected to the payment of the amount equal to the full assessment, and the others were subjected to the payment of three times the assessment by the Watandar under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Abolition Act and the moment he did that the land was to be regranted to him. Therefore, on payment by the Watanadar to the State Government of the occupancy price equal to three times the assessment of the land within the prescribed period and in the prescribed manner, the Government had to regrant the land to the Watandar, who was to be deemed to be an occupant within the meaning of the Code with all the liabilities arising under the Code, the rules made thereunder or under any other law for the time being in force. If this payment was not made by the Watandar within the prescribed time, the land which was already resumed by Government vests in the Government and the ex-Watandar would become a trespasser and an unauthorised occupant after the prescribed period. The ex-Watandar would then be liable to be evicted summarily but would still be liable to pay the land revenue during the period during which he would make up his mind whether to pay three times the assessment or not. Once the payment is made, the grant followed almost automatically and the ex-Watandar had to execute a Kabulayat in that behalf accepting the land from the Government on the usual terms and conditions under the Code. At this stage sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Abolition Act becomes most important and relevant and is quoted for ready reference:---