http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12  

PETITIONER: BHAGWANTRAO

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: VISHWASRAO AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/01/1960

BENCH: DAS, S.K. BENCH: DAS, S.K. SARKAR, A.K.

CITATION:  1960 AIR  642            1960 SCR  (2) 710

ACT: Grant--Resumption--Patelki   huq   inam-True   nature    and character of-Inam Rules, 1859-Patel and Patwaris Law,  1900- Berar Land Revenue Code, 1928, s. 190.

HEADNOTE: The question for decision in the appeal was the right of the revenue  authorities of the State Government  concerned,  to resume certain lands known as ’patelki huq inam,’ which  lay in the jagir village of Nawabag situate in the ceded area of Berar.   The  lands  were  granted  by  the  then  sovereign authority by way of remuneration or emoluments for  services to be rendered by the patel; the grant was of ancient origin and  was  recognised  as a ’ service inam’  by  the  British Government.   In  the  village of Nawabag  there  were  four families  of  patels, who went by the  surnames  of  Dongre, Rokade,  Raut  and  Ingle, the members  of  which  held  the patel’s  office  in  rotation of ten  years.   There  was  a partition  in  the  Rokade family as  result  of  which  the ’patelki  inam’  lands were divided, and the lands  in  suit were  allotted to the share of the appellant who never  held the  patel’s office.  During an enquiry for the  preparation of  the record of rights of the said jagir village,  it  was held  that  the  appellant  was not  entitled  to  hold  the ’patelki  inam’  lands which were given  as  emoluments  for service to the working patel, and the Financial Commissioner finally  held that the person actually working as patel  was entitled  to receive the full emoluments of his office,  and confirmed  the  order that the lands in  possession  of  the appellant  should  be resumed and regranted to  the  working patel, viz., the respondent No. 1. On the question of the true nature of the patelki huq  inam, two points arose: (1) was it a grant by way of  remuneration or emoluments of the patel’s office by the use of the  land, or (2) was it a grant of land to the patelki family burdened with service and so long as the service was performed by any member  of  the family, the lands were  joint  family  lands subject to partition etc. among the members of the family. Held, that the ’patelki inam’ in this case was in its origin a  grant by way of remuneration for patelki service  by  the sovereign authority; it was separate from and independent of the  jagir of Nawabag though the land lay within  the  jagir

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12  

village.  In its true character the ’patelki inam’ was  land given  in  lieu  of wages or emoluments for  the  office  of patel;  it could not be freely alienated and the  Government could resume the land. Held,  further, that where one of two or more patels of  the village  held office in turn by rotation, that did not  mean that 711 the  patel ceases to be a patel when his turn was  over;  he continued  to  be  a patel and to enjoy  his  emoluments  of office. Held, also, that there was nothing in the Inam Rules,  1859, on the basis of which a person could claim as of right  that he  had a share in the ’patelki inam’ lands as a  member  of the patel’s family irrespective of whether he performed  the service  or  not.  A member of the patel’s  family  was  not entitled  as  of right to a share in the emoluments  of  the patel’s  office  and Government had every  right  to  resume ’patelki  inam’ lands and regrant them to the officiator  in accordance  with  the provisions of the Patel  and  Patwaris Law, 1900, and s. 1900 of the Berar Land Revenue Code, 1928. Held, also, that on the finding that the lands were given by way  of  emoluments for the patel’s office, no  question  of title by adverse possession arose against the Government  in the circumstances of the case. Venkata Jagannadha v. Veerabhadrayya, (1921) L.R. I.A.  224, referred to. Krishnarao  v. Nilkantha and Others, A.I.R. (1922) Nag.  52, Mir  Subhan Ali v. Imami Begum, (1925) 21 Nag.   L.  Reports 117,  Lakhamgouda  Basavaprabhu Sardesai v.  Baswantrao  and Others,  A.I.R. (1931) P.C. 157, Jaiwantrao and  Another  v. Sahebyao,   (1933)  29  Nag.   L.  Reports  210   and   Raje Shrinivasrao  v.  Raje  Vinayakrao,  I.L.R.  [1949]  Nag.  1 discussed.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No, 208 of 1955. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated November 27, 1951, of the former Nagpur High Court, in Second Appeal No. 169 of 1947, arising out of the judgment and decree dated  February 3, 1947, of the First Additional District Judge, Amraoti  in Civil  Appeal  No. 85-A of 1946, against  the  judgment  and decree  dated  December 20, 1945, of the Civil  Judge  First Class, Ellichpur, in Civil Suit No. 1 of 1943. W.   S. Barlingay and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant. H.   J. Umrigar and Sardar Bahadur, for respondent No. 1. R.   Ganapathy  Iyer, M. P. Nathwani and R. H.  Dhebar,  for respondent No. 2. 1960.  January 12.  The Judgment of the Court was  delivered by S.   K.  DAS  J.-This is an appeal on a certificate  S.   K. Da,,  J. granted. by the High Court of Nagpur  under  clause (c) 712 of Article 133(1) of the Constitution to the effect that the case is a fit one for appeal to this Court.  It raises  some important   questions  as  to  the  right  of  the   revenue authorities  of  the State Government concerned,  to  resume certain lands which are known as " patel ki huq inam " lands situate in what was      previously known as the ceded  area of   Berar.    The  plaintiff  Bhagwantrao   Shivaji   Patel (Bhagwantrao,  to  give  his short name)  is  the  appellant before us. Vishwasrao Patel. who was defendant No. 2 in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12  

suit,  is now respondent No. 1. Originally,  the  Provincial Government of the Central Provinces and Berar was  defendant No.  1,  and  now the State of Bombay is  respondent  No.  2 before  us.   Formerly,  the lands in suit  lay  within  the province  of  Central Provinces and Berar; later  they  fell within  the  State of Madhya Pradesh, and now  they  are  in Bombay. The  relevant facts which have given rise to the appeal  may now be shortly stated.  The lands in suit were comprised  in six  survey numbers stated in paragraph one of  the  plaint. They  lay in village Nawabag, a jagir village, of  Ellichpur (now  called  Archalpur)  taluq  of  Berar,  and  we   shall hereinafter  give some more details of that jagir.  In  that village  there were four families of Patels some members  of which held the  Patel’s  office in rotation of ten years  each.   These four  families went by the surnames of Dongre, Rokade,  Raut and  Ingle.  We are concerned with the Rokade  family.   One Shivajirao  of  that family had two sons, called  Amrit  and Bhagwant.  Bhagwant, as we know, is the appellant before us. Vishwasrao,   respondent  No.  1,  is  the  son  of   Amrit. Shivajirao  died  sometime in 1886.  His son Amrit  died  in 1920.   In 1923 there was a partition between the  appellant and respondent No. 1. The case of the appellant was that  as a result of this partition, the " patelki inam " lands were divided and  the lands in suit were allotted to the share of the  appellant.   When Shivajirao was alive,  he  worked  as patel; so did Amritrao in his turn.  Lastly, Vishwasrao also worked as patel.  In 1935 a special officer was appointed by Government  to  prepare  a record of  rights  of  the  jagir village of Nawabag.  This                             713 officer  submitted a report on which certain enquiries  were made.   As a result of these enquiries it was held that  the appellant was not entitled to hold the "patelki inam"  lands which were given as emoluments of his office to the  working patel from the Rokade family.  It was ordered by the  Deputy Commissioner  that the lands in possession of the  appellant should be resumed and regranted to the working patel,  viz., respondent No. 1. The appellant appealed against this order. The  Commissioner of Berar set aside the order of  eviction, but  maintained  the  status quo  pending  final  orders  of Government.  Ultimately, on December 19, 1941, the Financial Commissioner held that the person actually working as  patel was  entitled to receive the full emoluments of his  office, and  revenue officers had consistently refused to admit  any claims to shares in patelki emoluments.  Accordingly, he set aside the order of the Commissioner and restored that of the Deputy  Commissioner.  Thereupon, the appellant brought  his suit in 1942 in which he claimed that the Government had  no jurisdiction or authority to resume and regrant the lands to respondent  No.  1  and the orders  passed  by  the  revenue authorities  concerned  were null and void.   The  appellant asked  for  possession and mesne profits.  By  a  subsequent amendment of the plaint, the appellant alleged that at least two of the plots, 211A and 9/1A, had ceased to be "  patelki inam  "  lands  and were private  property  of  the  family. Therefore,  in  any view of the matter,  Government  had  no right  to resume these two plots.  His claim with regard  to these plots was alternatively placed on a somewhat different footing and we shall, in due course, consider that claim. The suit was dismissed by the trial Judge, but on appeal  by the present appellant the learned Additional District  Judge of  Amraoti decreed the suit.  There was a second appeal  to the High Court of Nagpur which allowed the appeal, set aside

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12  

the  decree of the lower appellate court, and restored  that of the trial Judge.  The High Court substantially held  that (1)  the  lands in suit were granted by the  then  sovereign authority by way of remuneration or emoluments for 91 714 services  to  be  rendered by the patel and  the  grant  was recognised as a service inam by the British Government,  and (2)  it  was open to the revenue authorities to  resume  and regrant  the lands in accordance with the provisions of  the Patels  and Patwaris Law, 1900 in force in Berar and s.  190 of the Berar Land   Revenue  Code,  1928.   Thereafter,  the appellant  applied for and obtained a certificate  from  the High Court, and the present appeal has been brought pursuant to that certificate. To appreciate the points which have been urged before us  on behalf of the appellant, it is necessary to state some  more historical  facts about the jagir village Nawabag and the  " patelki inam " lands comprised therein.  The original sanads by  which the jagir of Nawabag or the " patelki inam  "  was created  have not been produced in this case.  There  is  no doubt, however,that both are of very ancient origin.   Berar was  ceded  by the Nizam of Hyderabad in 1853 and  the  Inam Rules  for settlement of jagir and inam claims were made  in 1859,  Rule 1 whereof stated inter alia that land which  was proved to have been held as inams, either under a fixed quit rent  or  rent-free  for a period of  40  years  before  the cession, was to be treated by the British Government as inam possessed under a valid title.  The promulgation of the Inam Rules  was followed by an inams investigation.  Ex.  P-1  is the  copy  of  an inam entry dated August  31,  1866.   This document shows that the jagir of Nawabag was granted by  the Kings  of  Delhi to one Shah Abdul Huq originally.   It  was subsequently  continued and confirmed by sanads  granted  by the  Nizam  of Hyderabad in 1757.  The village had  a  total area  of about 1,846 bighas, out of which about  262  bighas were  held  by  patels  in lieu of their  "  huq  "  in  the proportion of I bighas per netan (a measure of nine bighas). The  Inam Commissioner stated that the jagir had  been  held upward&  of 100 years before the inam enquiry and should  be continued (except for an area of 200 big has for which there was  no satisfactory proof) in perpetuity subject to a  quit rent  of Rs. 87-8-0.  There is an earlier document, Ex.   P- 9A, of October 24,1771, 715 which  shows that there was a dispute between the  jagirdars and the patels about the latter’s right to get  If  bighas of  "  patelki  inam " land per "  netan  ".  The  jagirdars disputed the claim of the patels and ultimately the  dispute was  submitted  to  the  Nazim  Sahib    of  Ellichpur.  The document contains the following recital which shows that the "  patelki inam " lands of  village Nawabag were  also  very ancient  grants: "The Nazim, after seeing from the  previous records  as to who was in enjoyment, granted  the  mukaddami inamof  a bigha and a half from year to year as  desired  by the  mukaddaman.   As per the old judicial  usage,  land  is calculated  at the rate of one and half bigha  pernetan  and measured  out  from the lands of Nawabag and  the  aforesaid mukaddaman  are held to be occupants of the said  cultivated landIt  appears  that out of 262 bighas of "  patelki  inam lands  in  the  village, the Rokade  family  held  about  11 plots,approximately of about 50 acres.  Sometime before 1904 some  of the co-sharer-jagirdars of Nawabag ali  enated  the jagir   lands   to  strangers.   This  led   to   resumption proceedings by Government, and ultimately half of the  jagir

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12  

village was resumed by Government in or about 1904-05.  As a result of a detailed enquiry, survey numbers 1 to 21 and  40 to  45  of the " patelki inam " lands fell  in  the  resumed portion  and  survey numbers 22 to 39 were included  in  the jagir   portion.   As  survey  numbers  2/IA  and  9/IA   in possession of the Rokade family fell in the resumed portion, they  were recorded as Khalsa and were assessed to  revenue, while the remaining survey numbers viz. 29/1, 34/3, 36/2 and 37/2 continued to be in possession of the Rokade family free of  assessment.  There was another resumption proceeding  in or about 1917 when it was discovered that the jagirdars  had alienated  lands  falling in the jagir portion  also.   This time the lands resumed were not made Khalsa but were regran- ted  to  the  jagirdas.  As a result  of  this  regrant  the jagirdars thought that they were entitled to take possession of the "patelki inam" lands of the Rokade family also.  This led to some more revenue proceedings, and we come now to one of the important 716 documents  in  this case, viz., a letter  dated  August  28, 1922,  by  which sanction of Government was conveye  to  the exclusion    from   resumption   of   25   acres   and    15 gunthas of land in the khalsa portion of the village    and to  the  exclusion from the land regranted to  the  jagirdar viz.  of 24 acres 30 gunthas in the inam portion of  Nawabag jagir  village".  The order made by the  Government  further stated  that  the aforesaid lands would be recorded  in  the name  of  Amrit Shivaji Patel as his " patelki huq  inam  ". Some  of the other patel families made an attempt to  get  a release of the inam lands held by them, which had since been resumed; but this attempt proved unsuccessful and Government held  that  an  enquiry showed that with  the  exception  of Amritrao,  no member of the old patelki families except  Deo Rao was in possession of the old "patelki inam" lands and as Deo  Rao  did not belong to a branch in which the  right  to officiation resided, his claim could not be considered.  The order  of Government in 1922, therefore, made it clear  that the "patelki inam" lands of Amritrao formed one. homogenous, separate  service  grant  and  were  not  dependent  on  the resumption  of  the jagir of Nawabag. The   proceedings   of  1917-1922  were  followed   by   the proceedings  of  1935-1941  which  culminated  in  a   third resumption  of  the " patelki inam " lands  and  regrant  to Vishwasrao  and  to Which we have earlier  referred.   These proceedings bring the history of the lands in suit up to the time when the appellant brought his suit in 1942. Now, apart from the alternative claim with regard to  survey numbers  2/IA  and 9/IA and the claim of  title  by  adverse possession,  which  claims  we  shall  consider  later,  the principal question which falls for decision in this  appeal, is the true nature of these " patelki inam " lands; do  they constitute  a grant by way of remuneration or emoluments  of the patel’s office by the use of the lands, as found by  the High  Court,  or do they constitute a grant of land  to  the patelki  family  burdened with service and so  long  as  the service is performed by any member of the family, the  lands are joint family lands subject to partition       717 etc. among the members of the family? Onbehalf  of  the appellant, it has been very stronglycontended before  us that the finding of the High Court on   this point is wrong. On this part of the case learned   counsel for the appellant has made a four-fold     submission;   firstly,   that   the rights which the    Rokade  family had in these  lands  were rights of      dealing with the property as owners,  subject

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12  

to a member  of the family rendering patelki service; or  in other words, the grant was a grant of land burdened    with service;  secondly,  the grant was made by the  jagirdar  of village Nawabag and not by the sovereign     authority   and neither the Inam Rules, nor the provisions of the Patels and Patwaris Law, 1900 applied;   thirdly, even if the aforesaid Rules and provisions     applied,   the   appellant    still retained his hereditary  rights in the lands; and  fourthly, the orders of  Government  dated  August 28, 1922,  did  not confer any     new right nor did they deprive anybody of any subsisting  right in respect of the " patelki inam  "  lands and Government had no right to resume the lands and  regrant them  to  respondent  No. 1. The second  submission  can  be disposed of without much difficulty. We have already  stated that the  sanads creating the jagir or the " patelki inam  " have not been produced. The earliest document we have is the kararnama of October 24, 1771. That document shows,  as   we have  stated earlier, that there was a dispute  between  the jagirdars and the patels; the patels were demanding I bighas per netan as their " huq and the jagirdars were saying  that no such " huq " was mentioned  in the sanads granted to  the jagirdars. The dispute  was referred to the Nazim,  who  was the local representative  of the then  sovereign  authority, and  the decision of the Nazim was expressed by saying  that the Nazim granted the inam of a bigha and a  half from  year to year for each netan; it was also     stated that this was supported by old judicial usage.   In our view the kararnama shows two things: first, the grant of " patelki inam " of 1- 1/2 bighas per netan     was  in its origin a grant  by  the sovereign authority which the Nazim confirmed in  accordance with old 718 judicial  usage; secondly, that the grant was from  year  to year in lieu of patelki services and was binding on      the jagirdars who agreed to be bound by it.  The entry  in   the Inam Register, dated August 31, 1866    (Ex.  P-1) is to the same effect; it shows that 262 bighas were excluded from the jagir  "  as allowed to patel in lieu of his  huq  to  1-1/2 bighas",  in contradistinction to other petty inams  allowed by  the  holders (jagirdars) themselves.  On behalf  of  the appellant our attention has been drawn to Rules 1 and 11  of the Inam Rules and to Rule XV; it has been submitted that if the  " patelki inam " was separate from and  independent  of the jagir which was a class 111 inam, a separate title  deed in  the form of an inam certificate would have been  granted in  respect of the " patelki inam " as a class IV inam.   It may  be,  as the High Court points out, that the  "  patelki inams  "  were  not separately recognised  during  the  inam enquiry, and it was then assumed as if these were  interests carved  out of the lands granted. to the  jagirdars.   There is,  how.  ever,  clear evidence in the record  that  the  " patelki  inam"  of this case was independent of  the  jagir. Immediatly  after the first resumption  proceedings  against the  jagirdars in 1904-05, the position of the  patels  came under consideration of the revenue authorities.  In 1906 one Moti  of  Dongre  family was appointed  patel  by  the  Sub- divisional  officer,  Ellichpur.  In  1907  Amrit,  son   of Shivaji,  was  appointed  patel  in  the  Rokade  family  to officiate  in rotation with Moti. This appointment was  made by  the  Deputy Commissioner.  In 1908 there was  a  dispute between  the jagirdars and patels and the order of the  Sub- divisional officer who decided the dispute said: "The Jagirdar says that his family appointed Patels from the watan  family, but this is not borne out by such  papers  as exist.   There is a petition dated 4-1-67 from the  Jagirdar

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12  

requesting  the Revenue authority of the time to  appoint  a certain  person as Patel.  At that period then  the  Revenue authorities and not the Jagirdar appointed the Patel. The  Patels  are village servants only and  are  responsible only to the Government and not to the Jagirdar.      719 The Patel family has had watandari rights for certainly  150 years or so. I am of opinion therefore that the watan  seems  independent of the Jagir." This dispute went up to Commissioner Sly (later Sir    Frank Sly) and he held that the patelki is a watan      independent of the jagir, and he approved the proposal   for    rotation between Moti and Amrit. The " patelki   inams " were treated on  the  same basis in the resumption proceedings  of  1917- 1922, and by the order dated  August  28,  1922,  Government excluded the " patelki   inam  " lands from  the  resumption proceedings relating     to  the jagir on the  footing  that they were separate  from  and independent of the jagir.  Mr. Walker,   then  Financial  Commissioner, said in  his  order dated     August 7, 1918, (Ex. ID-11): "Although the Patel holds no Inam Certificate, I  agree with the  Commissioner that the inam resumption  procedure  which was necessitated by the action of the jagirdar, ought not to upset the arrangement    concerning  the Patels,  which  was made  at the suggestion of His Exalted Highness the  Nizam’s Government     many years ago. To give effect to this  view, it  will be necessary to reopen the enquiry as  regards  the whole  village-both the khalsa part and the  regranted  inam part-and to determine what fields in each    represent   the original grant of 262 bighas to the Patel    in lieu of  his huq.  When  that  area has been determined,  the  orders  of resumption will have to be    modified so as to exclude it." There  is, therefore, overwhelming evidence in this case  to show   that  the  patelki  inams  were  separate  from   and independent  of the jagir of Nawabag, though the  lands  lay within the jagir village. This  brings us to the more important question what  is  the true character of the "patelki inam" lands of this case ? On this   point  also,  we  think  that  there  is  clear   and unimpeachable evidence in support of the finding of the High Court. We have already referred    to the kararnama of  1771 and  the inam entry of 1866. If the grants were a  grant  of land to the patelki 720 families  burdened with service, it is difficult  to  under- stand  how  there could arise a dispute  about  remuneration between the jagirdars and patels and why the remuneration of 1-1/2  bighas per netan should be fixed from year  to  year. In  a  revenue case of 1908 Amrit Patel had  himself  stated that the land was given  to   his  ancestors  in  lieu,   of patelki  huq and it should not be assessed to land  revenue. Even  in his plaint, the appellant had asserted that  the  " Patels were given certain lands out of the jagir village for their  working as patels and for discharging other  duties." There is another important document in this connection.   In the  second  resumption proceedings of 1917  Government  had first decided to resume the jagir and regrant it to the then Jagirdar  Amerulla Khan.  In the orders passed (Ex.   ID-18) it  was  stated that the Jagirdars would be  at  liberty  to allow  the  working  patels  to  hold  such  lands  as  were considered  reasonable  by the Deputy Commissioner  free  of revenue and in lieu of mushahara (emoluments or wages).   It is important to note that everybody understood then that the " patelki inam " was in lieu of wages or emoluments for  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12  

office  of  patel.   These orders led  to  an  enquiry,  and Amritrao made a statement that he was holding survey numbers 26 27, 29, 34, 36 and 37 in lieu of patelki emoluments.   He said that he was even willing to hold 4 acres 17 gunthas  of survey  no. 27 in lieu of his emoluments.  It  appears  that the Sub-divisional officer then recommended that Amrit Patel should  be given only 4 acres 17 gunthas, as emoluments  for his  office.   Later, an application was made on  behalf  of Amrit,  which  was  signed  by  his  brother,  the   present appellant  as  his agent, in which  occurred  the  following significant statements: "The  learned S.D.O. has again lost sight of the  fact  that the  family of the applicant has been doing the work of  the Patel  from a very long time, that in the early days of  the Berar  Administration  when land had no value  and  did  not fetch  the  income it is doing now, the  applicant  and  his predecessors  worked to what they would get from  the  land. Cash  had more value then than land and hence  the  Inamdars thought 721 it is advisable to commute money payment into land grant. That the learned Sub-Divisional Officer has lost sight   of the  fact that in the inam enquiry and the sanad granted  to the Inamdar of the Nawabag Jahagir  in 1866, the land in the possession of the applicant has been deducted from the  area of the village and it isonly  the rest of the area that  is made over to theInamdar,  vide, Co. 5 of the sanad  viz. area of grant.This shows that in 1866 the area reserved for the Patel was considered as a fair remuneration in kind to the Patel for his work." These statements show clearly enough what the appellant  and his  brother Amrit, understood to be the character of the  " patelki inam " lands; they clearly said that the lands  were given in lieu ofemoluments  or remuneration.  This  view ultimatelyprevailed   and  the  earlier   orders   were modified  on the recommendation of Commissioner Standan  who saidthat  the  lands held by the patel as  "  patelki  inam "should be excluded from resumption and the patel should  be allowed  to  hold the lands free of any payment in  lieu  of cash remuneration for his office. Inthe   result    were passed the orders dated August 28,1922,    to    which    a reference has already been made.These  transactions   and the statements made thereinare admissible, in the absence of the sanads creatingthe grant, to show how the  parties themselves haveunderstood  and dealt with the grant  in contestedrevenue  proceedings  between  the  jagirdars  and patels. On behalf of the appellant it has been submittedthat there is evidence in the record to show that someof  the  patels had alienated " patelki inam " landsand  the  "  patelki inam " lands of each patel remainedwith  him, in  spite of the fact that the office was heldin rotation ;  these circumstances, it is contended,militate against the view that the grant was a meregrant    of    office     with emoluments in the shape of Inamlands.  We are unable  to accept this contention ascorrect. The statement of  the appellant himself in a 92 722 revenue  case of 1937-38 (Ex.  ID-15) shows that  the  lands alienated by the other patels were resumed and regranted  to the  jagirdar  in  the resumption  proceedings  of  1917-18. After Amritrao had succeeded in    getting  his  "   patelki inam " lands excluded from resumption, the other patels also unsuccessfully      attempted to get their lands  released-a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12  

circumstance to which we have earlier referred.  This  shows that  Government  never  accepted the position  that  the  " patelki  inam  "  lands could be freely  alienated;  on  the contrary,  the evidence in the record shows that  Government had resumed such lands on more than one occasion.  As to the second  circumstance, it is indeed true that the office  was rotatory  (this  is provided for in s. 3 of the  Patels  and Patwaris  Law, 1900); but each patel retained his inam  land even  when it was not his turn to work as patel.  We do  not however, consider this circumstance as establishing that the grant  was  other than what the High Court held  it  to  be. Section 3 of the Patels and Patwaris Law, 1900 says in clear terms  that when there are two or more patels in a’  village and   the  duties  can,  in  the  opinion  of   the   Deputy Commissioner,  be  efficiently performed by one  patel,  the Deputy  Commissioner can direct that each patel  shall  hold office  in turn by rotation for a term of not less  than  10 years.  This does not mean that a patel ceases to be a patel when his turn is over; he continues to be a patel and enjoys his emoluments. We propose now to examine the position Under the Inam Rules, 1859, the Berar Patels and Patwaris Law, 1900 and the  Berar Land  Revenue  Code, 1928.  The argument on  behalf  of  the appellant is that even under the Inam Rules, he is  entitled to  his  share  in the "patelki inam" lands, so  long  as  a member  of the family works as patel.  Learned  counsel  for the appellant has drawn our attention to Rules V and VI  and has submitted that being a service inam, the it patelki inam " would come under the fourth class mentioned in Rule 11 and would be governed by Rule VI(2) which says: " Inams granted in lieu of lands or money stipends, commonly called huqs and ressums of offices, such as                            723 Deshmukh, Deshpandia, and others the service of   which  has either been dispensed with or otherwise discontinued,  shall be disposed of according to clause,     of  the Rule  V,  if they are hereditary in their terms,     either  by   express declaration of Government or by    recognized usage. Nothing in this rule shall be    deemed  to apply to cash  allowance known as ressums    or  lawazamas granted to  Deshmukhs  and Deshpandias    in  lieu of emoluments previously payable  to them." That Rule refers to clause (2) of Rule V which  reads: "  If the present incumbent is a descendant of the  original grantee,  the  inam will be continued to  him  hereditarily, subject to the following conditions :- First-Successions limited to direct lineal heirs  and undivided brothers. Second-The inam escheats to Government on    failure of such heirs. Third-Future alienation of the inam is prohibited. Fourth-The right of adoption to an inam is not    recognized." The  contention before us is that under Rule VI(2)read  with Rule V(2), the appellant was entitled to his share in the  " inam " as an undivided brother of  Amritrao,  Patel.  We  do not think that this contention     is   correct.   For   one thing, Rule VI(2) applies to inams,     granted  in lieu  of lands or money stipends, the service    of which -has either been dispensed with or otherwise   discontinued. That is not the case here. Secondly  clause  (8)  of Rule  VI  makes  it clear that when the inam attached to the office is wholly or partially in   the enjoyment of members of the family who do not  perform service, such portion of the alienated inam as may be considered necessary for the efficient performance of the duties will be attached to the office    holders,    and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12  

Rule  XIV(2) says that service grants are not liable  to  be alienated by purchase or otherwise.     Rule  VIII  explains the term ’inam’ and Rule 11 also   has  a  bearing  on   the question before us. It says, so    far as it is relevant for our purpose: "  The settlement will be made with the head member  of  the family holding the office or enjoying the 724 inam  and who will be held alone responsible to  Government, and  in no case will the Government interfere to compel  the actual incumbent of an office to  make over any  portion  of his regulated service grant to other branches of the family, as service grants cannot be divided according to the  orders of   Government. " Rule  XXI(2)  says  interalia that  in  respect  to  service grants,  the decisions of the Commissioner and the  Resident respecting  lands  held  free by  the  village  officers  as remuneration for service, shall be considered final. From these Rules it is manifestly clear to us that there  is nothing  in  them on the basis of which  the  appellant  can claim as of right that he has a share in the "patelki inam " lands  as  a member of the patel’s family,  irrespective  of whether he performs the service or not. The  position  under  the Patels  and  Patwaris  Law,  1900, appears  to  be clearer still.  Section 9 of  the  said  Law states that the emoluments appertaining to the office of the patel  or patwari shall be enjoyed solely by the person  for the  time being holding the office; even a substitute  shall receive  the  whole of the emoluments  appertaining  to  the office,  unless the Deputy Commissioner  otherwise  directs, and if there are two or more patels in a village, the Deputy Commissioner  shall determine the proportions in which  they shall share in the emoluments of office.  Sections 10 and  1 1  say  that the emoluments appertaining to  the  office  of patel  shall not be liable to attachment or sale, and  every assignment   thereof  shall  be  void.   Under  s.  20   the jurisdiction  of the Civil Court is barred with  respect  to any claim by any person to any emolument appertaining to the office of patel.  These provisions clearly indicate that the "  patelki inam " lands are subject to orders passed by  the revenue  authorities  in respect of  the  matters  mentioned therein, and no right is given to a member of the family  of the patel to claim a share in the emoluments. The  power  to resume lands granted on  condition  that  the holder shall render certain services is                             725 specifically referred to in s.190 of the Berar Land  Revenue Code.  We quote below the material portion of the section : "  Section  190(1)-If  alienated land has  been  granted  on condition  that the holder shall render certain services  or incur  expenditure for the benefit of the community  or  any section  thereof,  and  the  holder  fails  to  render  such services or to incur such expenditure to the satisfaction of the  Deputy  Commissioner, or, if the holder  transfers  the land  in such a manner that, in ther opinion of  the  Deputy Commissioner,  the  purpose  of the grant is  likely  to  be defeated,  the Deputy Commissioner may declare such land  to be forfeited. (2)  Land  forfeited  under this section shall vest  in  the Crown  for  the  purposes  of  the  Province  free  of   all encumbrances   and  shall  be  regranted  on  the   original conditions made under this Law." Section  192  says  inter alia that  no  civil  court  shall entertain any suit to obtain a decision on any matter  which the  revenue  authorities  are empowered under  the  Law  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12  

determine,  and among the matters mentioned in the  section, is  any claim against the State relating to any property  or emoluments  appertaining  to the office  of  any  hereditary officer  or  servant.  These provisions  also  negative  the claim of the appellant. We  proceed  now  to consider  certain  decisions  on  which learned  counsel  for  the appellant  has  sought  to  place reliance.   We may notice here one comment made by him.   He has submitted that the High Court has relied on the decision of the Privy Council in Venkata Jagannadha v.  Veerabadrayya (1) where the question was whether the karnam service  lands enfranchised  to  a karnam, a village accountant  in  Madras State,  were  subject  to any claim of  partition  by  other members of the family, and his comment is that the " patelki inam  "  lands in Berar stand on a  footing  different  from karnam  service lands in Madras and there are  decisions  in which  it  has been held that co-sharers have a right  to  a share  in  service grants in Berar.  The first  decision  to which oar attention has (1)  (1921) L.R. 48 I.A. 244. 726 been drawn is Krishnarao v. Nilkantha and Others (2).   That was  a case of a jagir, and it was held that it  came  under the third class, and nothing regarding ordinary rule is that if persons are entitled beneficially to shares in an estate, they  may  have  a  partition.  It  was  further  held  that property  consisting of an ordinary inam village was  liable to  partition at the suit of a co-sharer except when it  was held  on a saranjam or other impartible tenure or where  the terms  of the grant impose a condition upon  its  enjoyment. We  do  not think that this decision  establishes  what  the appellant  is  seeking to establish in this case,  that  is, that be has a share in the emoluments of the patel’s office. The next decision is that of the Privy Council in Mir Subhan Ali  v. Imami Begum (3) ; all that was laid down  there  was that the devolution and incidents of an inam estate in Berar were regulated by the Inam Rules, 1859, but only in  matters not mentioned in the sanad or certificate or other  document evidencing the special terms of the grant in the  particular case.   The fundamental question at issue there was  one  of construction, namely, whether the beneficial interest in the Inam  granted  to  a  common ancestor  of  the  parties  and continued by the British Government in 1866 passed under the terms  of the grant then made to all heirs of  the  grantees according  to  Shia Mahomedan Law or  whether  the  interest devolved on the male descendants only.  It was not a service grant,  and no question of a share in the emoluments of  the patel’s  office  arose there.  In  Lakhamgouda  Basavaprabhu Sardesai  v.  Baswantrao and Others (4)  the  Privy  Council pointed  out the distinction between the grant of an  office to  be remunerated by the use of land and the grant of  land burdened with service; it said that in the former case,  the land would be prima facie resumable but not so in the latter case, unless the terms of the grant or the circumstances  in which it was made established that it was resumable. (1) A.I.R. (1922) Nag. 52.     (2) (1925) 21 Nag.  L.R. 117. (3) A.I.R. (1931) P.C. 157. 727 In  the case of Jaiwantrao and Another v. Sahebrao (1),  the inam certificate issued to the head of the senior branch  of a  family of Deshmukh watandars stated that the village  was granted  "for  personal  maintenance to  the  claimant,  his descendants and co-sharers"; Accordingly, it was held that a co-sharer was entitled to possession of his share  appearing from  the  inam  statement.  In Raje  Shrinivasrao  v.  Raje

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12  

Vinayakrao(2) there was grant of two villages to the  great- grandfather  of the appellant and the respondent,  who  were brothers,  and " his lineal heirs " or " his  successors  ". The  question was whether primogeniture was to be the  order of  descent or the estate was impartible.  It was held  that the ordinary principles of Hindu Law were applicable and the earlier  decision in Mir Subhan Ali v. Imami Begam  (3)  was referred to.  Here again the grant was not a service  grant, and  no question of a claim of a share in the emoluments  of office  fell  even  for  consideration,  not  to  speak   of decision. We  consider  it unnecessary to multiply decisions.   It  is enough  to  state that no decision has been brought  to  our notice  in  which  it has been held that  a  member  of  the patel’s  family  is entitled as of right to a share  in  the emoluments of the patel’s office and that Government has  no right to resume " patelki inam lands and regrant the same to the officiator. It remains now to consider the special claim with regard  to survey numbers 2/IA and 9/lA.  The case of the appellant was that these two plots ceased to be inam lands, when they fell in  the  resumed  portion of the Jagir; they  were  sold  by Bannobi  Begum  and Mahmudi Begum, the  jagirdars,  and  the appellant  and his brother Amrit brought suits and  obtained decrees  in respect of these two plots and in  execution  of the  decrees  they obtained possession.  The  learned  trial Judge rightly pointed out that the decrees aforesaid related to property other than plots 2/IA and 9/lA.  Moreover, it is not  disputed  that  the entire " patelki inam  "  lands  in possession of Amritrao patel, including the plots which were made khalsa in 1904-05, were (1) (1933) 29 Nag.  L.R. 210.  (2) I.L.R. (1949) Nag. 1. (3) (1925) 21 Nag.  L.R. 117. 728 excluded  from resumption and Amrit’s "patelki  inam"  lands were treated as a homogenous unit by the orders   passed  on August 28, 1922.  The two plots, 21 1 A and  9/1A,therefore, stand on the same footing as other "patelki  inam" lands  of Amritrao. The claim of title by adverse possession can be disposed  of in  a few words.  Once it is held that the lands were  given by way of emoluments for the patel’s office, no question  of title by adverse possession arises against Government,  even though  the lands were shown as excluded from the  jagir  of Nawabag  in  1866.  Amrit worked as patel till  he  died  in 1920,  and  even  though the  appellant  got  possession  by partition  in 1923, it was open to Government to resume  the lands in 1941 and regrant the same to respondent No. 1. The appellant  can only succeed if he establishes that he had  a right to a share in the "patelki inam " lands and Government had  no  right to resume the same.  This the  appellant  has failed  to establish.  For  the reasons given, we hold that the appeal is  without merit and must be dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. 729