http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: MANGAL SINHJI DOLAT SINHJI ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF GUJARAT

DATE OF JUDGMENT11/10/1991

BENCH: KANIA, M.H. BENCH: KANIA, M.H. RAY, G.N. (J)

CITATION:  1992 AIR  221            1991 SCR  Supl. (1) 497  1992 SCC  (1) 182        JT 1991 (6)   529  1991 SCALE  (2)947

ACT: Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949:     Section   6   ---Explanation--Expression   "Uncultivated land"---Scope of--Land capable of cultivation but not culti- vated  continuosly for 3 .years prior to the enforcement  of the Act--Held "uncultivated laird" and vested in the State.

HEADNOTE:     The  appellants  were  tenants of  certain  lands  which formed  part of a Taluqdari Estate. These lands though  cul- tivable  were  not cultivated for a continuous period  of  3 years prior to the coming into Iorce of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949.     In  the tenant’s appeal to this Court, on  the  question whether  these  lands  were uncultivated  lands  within  the meaning of Section 6 of the 1949 Act and thus became  vested in the State: Dismissing the appeals, this Court,     HELD:  1. The lands in question are clearly  covered  by the definition of the expression "uncultivated land" as  set out in the Explanation to Section 6 of the Bombay  Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949. [500-F].     1.1  Even  according to the appellants  themselves,  the lands  were  under cultivation for some time  prior  to  the coming into force of the said Act and hence it could not  be said  that they were uncultivable lands. They were  in  fact lands  which were capable of cultivation and as a matter  of fact  had  been subjected to cultivation for  some-time  but were  not  cultivated 1or continuous period of  three  years prior  to the coming into force of the Act. Accordingly  the lands  must  be  regarded as "uncultivated  lands"  for  the purposes  of Section 6 of the Act and must be deemed  to  be vested in the State Government. [500 E-F, 499-C].     State  of Gujarat v. Gujarat Revenue  Tribunal,  [1980]1 SCR233, held inapplicable. 497 498

JUDGMENT:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1227  to 1230 of 1979.     From  the  Judgment and Order dated  24.11.1978  of  the Gujarat High Court in Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 54, 52, 53, 55 of 1973. B. Datta, J.P. Pathak and P.H. Parekh for the Appellants. R.N.  Sachthey,  Bimal  Roy Jad and Anip  Sachthey  for  the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     KANIA, J. These are the appeals by special leave from  a common judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High  Court disposing of the Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 52 to 55 of 1973 and  also  Letters  Patent Appeal No. 50 of 1973.  It  is  a common ground that the appellants are the tenants of certain lands which form part of the estate or wanta of a  Taluqdar. The  question is whether the provisions of Section 6 of  the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949, are  applicable to  the  lands  in question, and whether  under  the  Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949, which came into effect from 15th August, 1950, the said lands became vested in  the State  and all rights in the said land held by the  Taluqdar became the property of the Government. Under the  provisions of  Section 6 of the said Act, inter alia, all  uncultivated lands  excluding the land used for building and  other  non- agricultural  purposes, vest in the State. Section 6 of  the Bombay  Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949, runs  as  fol- lows: -               "All  public  roads,  lanes  and  paths,   the               bridges,  ditches,  dikes and  fences  on,  or               beside,  the same. the bed of the sea  and  of               harbours, creeks below high water mark, and of               rivers,  streams,  nailas,  lakes,  wells  and               tanks, and all canals, and water courses,  and               all  standing and flowing water,  all  unbuilt               village  site lands, all waste lands  and  all               uncultivated  lands (excluding lands used  for               building or other non-agricultural  purposes),               which are not situate within the limits of the               wantas as belonging to a taluqdar in a  taluq-               dari  estate  shall except in so  far  as  any               rights  of any person other than the  taluqdar               may  be established in and over the  same  and               except as may otherwise be provided by any law               for the time being in force, vest in and shall               be  deemed to be, with all rights in  or  over               the same or appertaining thereto, the property               of  the  Government and all rights held  by  a               taluqdar  in such property shall be deemed  to               have been extinguished and it shall be  lawful               for the Collector, subject to the               499                    general or special orders of the  Commis-               sioner,  to dispose them of as he  deems  fit,               subject  always to the rights of way  and   of               other  rights of the public or of  individuals               legally subsisting.                    Explanation:  For  the purposes  of  this               section,  land shall be deemed to be  unculti-               vated,  if  it has not been cultivated  for  a               continuous  period of three years  immediately               before the date   on which this Act comes into               force."     The question is whether for the purposes of this section the  lands  in question were uncultivated lands.  It  is  an admitted position that the lands were leased by the Taluqdar

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

to the tenants. There is also a clear and categorical  find- ing of facts that these lands had remained uncultivated  for a  period  of 3 years immediately before the said  Act  came into force. Prima facie it would appear that in view of  the said explanation to section 6 the lands must be regarded  as uncultivated lands for the purposes of section 6 of the said Act  and must be deemed to be vested in Government.  Learned Counsel  for the appellants, however, contended that as  the lands had been put to cultivation earlier for some time even though  not cultivated for continuous three years  prior  to vesting  they  cannot  be regarded  as  uncultivated  lands. According  to  learned Counsel, if the land  is  capable  of being cultivated, it cannot be treated as uncultivated  land within the meaning of section 6. He relied on a decision  of this  Court in State of Gujarat v. Gujarat Revenue  Tribunal reported  in [1980] 1 SCR page 233. Our attention  has  been drawn  to the observation made at page 239 of the  said  re- port.  After setting out the provision of Section 6  it  has been observed, as follows:               "On a fair reading of the section, it would be               evident  that  the vesting is  in  respect  of               properties  which could be put to public  use.               It leaves the private properties of the taluq-               dar  untouched.  The  legislative  intent   is               manifested  by  clear enumeration  of  certain               specific  properties  not situate  within  the               wantas of a taluqdar. It begins by  specifying               ’All public roads, lanes, paths, bridges etc.’               and ends up with ’all village site lands,  all               waste  lands and all uncultivated lands’,  and               these  being  public properties situate  in  a               taluqdar’s estate must necessarily vest in the               Government  because they are meant for  public               use.  In spite of vesting of such property  in               the Government, however, the conferral of  the               rights  of  an occupant on  a  taluqdar  under               section 5(1)(b) in respect of the lands in his               actual possession, is saved.               Pausing there, it is fair to observe that  the               words in parenthesis ’excluding lands used for               building or other non-agricultural               500                        purposes’, exemplify the intention of               the legislature not to  deprive a taluqdar  of               such  land,  even  though  such  property   is               uncultivated land, due to its inherent charac-               ter  as well as by     reason of the  Explana-               tion.               It is, therefore, evident that the  determina-               tion  of  the question  whether  a  particular               category  of property belonging to a  taluqdar               in a taluqdan estate is vested in the  Govern-               ment  or  not, and the  determination  of  the               question whether the rights held by a taluqdar               in such property shall be deemed to have  been               extinguished  or  not, will  depend  upon  the               category of that property. The expression ’all               waste  lands’ has been joined  by  conjunctive               ’and’  with the expression  ’all  uncultivated               lands’. They, therefore, indicate two distinct               types of land. If the legislature had intended               that the aforesaid expression should  indicate               one  class  of lands,  the  expression  rather               would  have been ’all waste  and  uncultivated               lands’  as against the expression  ’all  waste

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

             lands  and  all uncultivated lands’.  Here  we               have,  therefore, two distinct  categories  of               proporties  viz.  (1)  waste  lands,  and  (2)               uncultivated  lands. The contention  that  the               grass-lands on hilly tracts which are  incapa-               ble  of  cultivation  were  ’waste  lands’  or               ’uncultivated  lands’  within the  meaning  of               section 6 cannot be accepted ."     The  said  decision of this Court  and  the  observation relied  on by the learned Counsel do not come in the aid  of the  contention made by the learned Counsel for  the  appel- lants.  Even  according to the  appellants  themselves,  the lands  were  under cultivation for some time  prior  to  the coming into force of the said Act and hence, it could not be said  that they were uncultivable lands. They were in  fact, lands  which were capable of cultivation and as a matter  of fact  subjected to cultivation for some time but,  which  as found  by the High Court were not cultivated for  continuous period of three years prior to the coming into force of  the said Act. In these circumstances, the said lands are clearly covered  by the definition of the  expression  "uncultivated land"  as  set out in the Explanation to section 6.  As  the said  lands  were uncultivated lands within the  meaning  of section  6, they must be deemed to have been vested  in  the Government  and  the  contention of the  appellants  to  the contrary must be rejected.     In the result, there is no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. T.N.A                                                Appeals dismissed. 501