http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: MAHARANA SHRI JAYAVANTSINHJI,RANMALSINHJI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND OTHERS(and connected petition)

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/12/1958

BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. DAS, SUDHI RANJAN (CJ) BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H. SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P. WANCHOO, K.N.

CITATION:  1959 AIR  547            1959 SCR  Supl. (1) 911

ACT: Taluqdari   Tenure,  Abolition  of-Liability  of   erstwhile Taluqdar  to Pay land revenue assessment-Jama,  if  distinct from such assessment-Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition  Act, 1949 (Bom.  LXI of 1949), S. 5(2)-Gujrat Taluqdars Act, 1888 (Bom.   VI  of 1888), SS. 22, 23-Bombay Land  Revenue  Code, 1879 (Bom.  V of 1879), S. 117R.

HEADNOTE: The  appellants were Taluqdars owning taluqdari villages  in District Ahmedabad, State of Bombay.  In 1922-23 there was a revision settlement of land revenue and the aggregate sum of land revenue payable by each taluqdari estate was fixed.  In 1925-26, in exercise of the powers conferred by s. 22 of the Gujrat   Taluqdars  Act,  1888  (Bom.   VI  of  1888),   the Government  of  Bombay  ascertained and  declared  the  jama payable by each taluq which was much less than the amount of land revenue and the said declaration was to remain in force for  thirty years.  With the passing in 1949 of  the  Bombay Taluqdari Abolition Act, 1949, the taluqdari estates of  the appellants  were abolished and they became occupants of  the lands and, after the expiry of the thirty years, were called upon  to pay the full land revenue assessment in respect  of the  lands.   It was contended on behalf of  the  appellants that  by reason of s. II7R of the Bombay Land Revenue  Code, i879, the declaration made by the Governor in council fixing the  amount  of  jama for a period  of  thirty  years  would continue to be in force even after the expiry of that period till  a revision settlement was made and the Government  was precluded  from demanding the higher amount of revenue  till then. Held, that the contention must fail. The jama payable by the Taluqdars under S. 22 Of the  Gujrat Taluqdars   Act,  1888,  was  distinct  from   the   revenue assessment  of  land comprised in the taluqdari  estate  and they  could not be equated.  The declaration under s. 22  or the  fixation of the jama under S. 23(1) of the Act  was  in the  nature  of  a  settlement  entered  into  between   the Government on the one hand and the Taluqdar on the other but

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

that was no settlement of land revenue within the meaning of s. II7R of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. As s. 5(2) (b) of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949,  expressly saved the settlement made under S.  23  and the 912 declaration  under  s. 22 of the Gujrat Taluqdars  Act,  the appellants were liable to pay the entire land revenue  after the expiry Of 30 years, i.e., from the year 1955-56.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 254 to  256 of 1958. Appeals by special leave from the judgment and orders  dated May 14, 1956, and June 15, 1956, of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Applications Nos. 1270, 1373 and 1374 of 1956. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petitions No& IS and 66 of 1957. Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India  for the enforcement of fundamental rights. A.   V.  Viswanatha  Sastri  and  S.  S.  Shukla,  for   the appellants and the petitioners. C.   K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, H. J.  Umrigar and B. H. Dhebar, for the respondents. 1958.  December 16.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO, J.-These are three appeals by Special Leave  from the  judgment  of  the High Court of  Judicature  at  Bombay dismissing  the petitions filed by the appellants for  Writs in  the  nature of Prohibition restraining  the  respondents from  realising from the appellants land revenue in  respect of  their estates at an enhanced rate for the year  1955-56. The petitioners in the two petitions also asked for  similar relief against the respondents.  The appeals as well as  the Writ Petitions were heard together, as they raised a  common question of law. The  material facts in Civil Appeal No. 254 of 1958  may  be briefly stated: The appellant was a taluqdar owning  several taluqdari villages situate in the Dholka Taluka of Ahmedabad District.   In  the  year  1922-23  there  was  a   revision settlement of land revenue of the lands situate in the  said taluka  including the said taluqdari villages.   Under  that settlement  the  aggregate of the land  revenue  payable  in respect  of  the  lands  comprised  in  the  said  taluqdari villages was fixed in a sum of Rs. 62,627-2-6.  In the  year 1925-26, in exercise of the powers conferred under 913 s.22  of the Gujarat Taluqdars Act, 1888 (Bom.  VI of  1888) (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  Taluqdars’  Act),   the Government of Bombay ascertained and declared that a jama of Rs. 32,643-3-0 was payable in respect of the said  taluqdari villages and the said declaration was to remain in force for a period of thirty years from the year 1925-26.  In the year 1949,  the  Bombay Legislature passed the  Bombay  Taluqdari Abolition   Act,  1949,  hereinafter  referred  to  as   the Abolition Act, and it came into force on or about August 15, 1950.   By s. 3 of the Abolition Act, taluqdari  tenure  was abolished and all the incidents of the said tenure attaching to   any  land  comprised  in  the  taluqdari  estate   were extinguished.  Under the Abolition Act, the appellant became an  occupant of the lands.  After the expiry of  the  thirty year  period, the talatis of the respective villages  called upon  the appellant to pay the full land revenue  assessment in respect of the lands comprised in the said villages.  The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

appellant  contending  that he was only liable to  pay  jama declared  to be payable by him by the Government in  1925-26 filed  a Writ Petition in the High Court of Bombay  for  the aforesaid relief. The  appellant  in  Civil  Appeal No. 255  of  1958  was  a; taluqdar owning several taluqdari villages situate in Dholka and Dhandhulka Talukas of Ahmedabad District.  The facts  in this case are similar to those given in Civil Appeal No. 254 of  1958  except  in  regard  to  the  fact  that  the  jama ascertained  and declared to be payable by the appellant  in this appeal by the Government in 1925-26 was about Rs. 5,734 as against the settlement amount of Rs. 14,452-11-0. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 256 of 1958 was a taluqdar owning  several taluqdari villages situate in Dholka  Taluka in  Ahmedabad District.  The facts in this appeal  also  are similar  to those in the other two except in regard  to  the fact  that  in  this case  the  Government  ascertained  and declared the jama payable by the appellant to be Rs.  21,877 as against the settlement amount of Rs. 44,551. 115 914 Writ Petition No. 66 of 1957 filed by the appellant in C. A. No. 254 of 1958 relates to the demand of enhanced revenue in respect of his Sanad estate.  The facts in this petition are similar  to those in the appeals except that the  Government ascertained  and  declared the jama payable by  him  at  Rs. 20,886 as against the settlement amount of Rs.  48,247-13-0. The  Writ Petition relates to the demand made for  the  year 1956-57. Writ   Petition  No.  18  of  1957  was  filed   by   Thakur Vikramsinhji   Manharsinhji  of  Gumph   Estate,   Ahmedabad District,  Bombay State, who was a taluqdar of Gumph  Estate in   Ahmedabad  District  comprising  of   seven   taluqdari villages.   The facts in this petition also are  similar  to those  in the appeals.  In, this case the  jama  ascertained and  declared was Rs. 16,499-4-0 whereas the assessment  was fixed  at Rs. 30,223-12-0.  This Writ Petition also  relates to the demand made for the year 1955-56. The  appellants  in the appeals and the petitioners  in  the Writ   Petitions  aforesaid  will  be,  for  the   sake   of convenience, described hereafter as the appellants. Mr.  A.  V. Viswanatha Sastri, the learned Counsel  for  the appellants, contends that the jama ascertained and  declared to  be due from the appellants for a period of thirty  years was  fixed at the revenue settlement, that by reason  of  s. 117R  of  the Bombay Land Revenue  Code,  1879  (hereinafter referred  to as the Code), they were liable to pay only  the said  assessment  till  there  was  re-settlement  and  that therefore the respondents have no right to make a demand for an  amount higher than that declared to be due from them  in 1925-26.   The  learned  Solicitor  General  counters   this argument by contending that under the Taluqdars’ Act,  there was an essential distinction between revenue settlement  and the  ascertainment and declaration of the jama;  that  after the Abolition Act, the amount of jama was payable only  till the expiry of the thirty year period and that thereafter the appellants who bad become mere occupants would be liable  to pay  the  entire land revenue assessment  already  fixed  in respect of those lands.  The question 915 is which of the two contentions should prevail having regard to  the  relevant  provisions of  the  Taluqdars’  Act,  the Abolition Act and the Code. It  will be convenient to read the relevant provisions  from the two Acts.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

GUJARAT TALUQDARS ACT, 1888: " 2. (1) In this Act, unless there be something repugnant in the subject or context,- (a) ........................................................ (b) ........................................................ (c) " jama " means land revenue payable by a taluqdar to the Provincial  Government. 4. It shall be lawful for the Provincial Government whenever it  may  seem  expedient, to direct a revenue  survey  or  a revised  revenue survey of any taluqdari estate,  under  the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, applicable to such survey. 5.  The settlement register prepared by the  Survey  Officer under section 108 of the said Code on the occasion of making any  such  survey shall, unless  the  Provincial  Government otherwise  direct  contain,  in  lieu  of  the   particulars specified  in  the said section, the  following  particulars (namely) :- (a) the area and the assessment of each surveynumber. 22.(1)  If a taluqdar’s estate, or any portion  thereof,  is not  wholly  or partially exempt from  landrevenue  and  its liability  to  payment  of land-revenue is  not  subject  to special  conditions  or restrictions, the  jama  payable  to Government  in  respect  of such estate  or  person  thereof shall, if a survey-settlement has been extended thereto,  be the   aggregate  of  the  surveyassessments  of  the   lands composing  such estate or such portion thereof,  minus  such deduction, if any, as Government shall in each case direct. (2)  The Governor in Council may declare the amount of  jama so  ascertained  fixed  for any term  not  exceeding  thirty years." BOMBAY TALUQDARI TENURE ABOLITION ACT, LXII of 1949: 916 "3.With  effect from the date on which this Act  comes  into force,- (i)the tuluqdari tenure shall wherever it prevails be deemed to have been abolished; and (ii)save as expressly provided by or under the provisions of this Act, all the incidents of the said tenure attaching  to any land comprised in a taluqdari estate shall be deemed  to have been extinguished. (4)All  revenue  surveys  or  revised  revenue  surveys   of taluqdari  estates  directed by the State  Government  under section  4  of the Taluqdars Act and  all  settlements  made shall  be deemed to have been made under Chapters  VIII  and VIII-A  of the Code and the settlement registers  and  other records  prepared  of such surveys shall be deemed  to  have been  prepared  under the corresponding  provisions  of  the Code. (5)(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2),- (a)all  taluqdari  lands  are and shall  be  liable  to  the payment  of land revenue in accordance with the  provisions. of the Code and the rules made thereunder, and (b)  a taluqdar holding any taluqdari land or a cadet  of  a taluqdar’s  family holding any taluqdari  land  hereditarily for  the  purpose  of maintenance,  immediately  before  the coming  into  force of this Act, shall be deemed  to  be  an occupant within the meaning of the Code or any other law for the time being in force. (2)Nothing in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to affect- (b)the  right  of  any person to pay  jama  only  under  any agreement or settlement recognised under section 23 or under a declaration under section 22 of the Taluqdars’ Act so long as  such  agreement, settlement or  declaration  remains  in force under the provisions of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

this Act. (17)  The  enactments specified in Schedule  II  are  hereby repealed:  Provided  that the repeal of the  said  enactment shall not in any way be deemed to affect,- (a)  ....................................................... 917 (b)......................................................... (c)  any  declaration made or any  agreement  or  settlement recognised,  any partition confirmed and any  management  of the taluqdari estate assumed under the provisions of any  of the enactments hereby repealed, and  any  proceedings  connected  with  such  partition   or management  instituted  before the aforesaid date  shall  be continued  and  disposed  of as if this  Act  had  not  been passed." The  position emerging from the aforesaid provisions may  be summarized  thus:  The Taluqdars’ Act was  enacted  to  make special  provision  for the revenue  administration  of  the estates  held  by  certain  superior  land-holders  in   the districts of Ahmedabad, Kaira, Broach and the Panch  Mahals. Section  4  enabled  the Governor in  Council  to  direct  a revenue  survey or revised revenue survey of  any  taluqdari estate under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. In  regard to such an estate, survey would be made under  s. 108 of the Code and the Settlement Officer would I prepare a Register to be called the " Settlement Register which  would contain the particulars mentioned in s. 5 of the  Taluqdars’ Act  in lieu of the particulars specified in s. 108  of  the Code.   Under s. 22 of the Taluqdars’ Act, the jama  payable by  a taluqdar would be the aggregate of the survey  assess- ments of the lands compoSING sucH an estate or such  portion thereof minus such deduction, if any, that the Government in each  case should direct.  Under sub-s. 2, the  Governor  in Council  was  empowered to declare the jama  so  ascertained fixed for any term not exceeding thirty years.  In 1949, the taluqdari  tenure  was  abolished by  the  Bombay  Taluqdari Tenure  Abolition  Act.  By s. 5 of the Abolition  Act,  the taluqdars  became occupants within the meaning of the  Code, i.e., they were deemed to be holders in actual possession of unalienated  lands other than the tenants; with  the  result that  all the taluqdari lands became liable to, the  payment of  land  revenue in accordance with the provisions  of  the Code and the rules made thereunder. 918 Sub-section  2 of s. 5 saved the right of any person to  pay jama only under an agreement or settlement recognized  under s.  23 or a declaration made under s. 22 of  the  Taluqdars’ Act  so  long as such agreement, settlement  or  declaration remained  in force.  Shortly stated, the combined effect  of the  provisions was that the taluqdari tenure was  abolished and that the taluqdar became the occupant with liability  to pay  land revenue in accordance with the provisions  of  the Code. If  there  was  no other  relevant  provision  indicating  a contrary  intention,  it  is  manifest  from  the  aforesaid summary  that  the appellants would be liable  to  pay  land revenue in accordance with the provisions of the Code  after the period fixed in the declaration expired, i.e., from  the year 1955-1956. The  learned  Counsel for the appellants  contends  that  by reason  of s. 117R of the Code, the declaration made by  the Governor in Council fixing the amount of jama, for a  period of thirty years would continue to be in force even after the expiry  of  the said period till a revision  settlement  was made  and  therefore the saving clause  would  preclude  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

Government from demanding higher amount of revenue than  the jama ascertained and fixed in the declaration till the  date of the revised settlement.  Section 117R of the Code reads: "  All  settlements  of land  revenue  heretofore  made  and introduced  and in force at the date of the commencement  of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1939, shall be deemed  to have been made and introduced in accordance  with the  provisions of this Chapter and  shall,  notwithstanding anything contained in section 117E, be deemed to continue to remain  in  force  until  the  introduction  of  a  revision settlement." If  the  declaration  of  the  Governor  in  Council  is   a settlement  of  land  revenue within  the  meaning  of  this section,  it would continue to be in force till  the  intro- duction  of  the  revision settlement.   It  is,  therefore, necessary to ascertain the meaning of the words " settlement of land revenue " in the section.  Settlement is defined  by s. 117C(1) to mean the result. of the 919 operations  conducted  in a zone in order to  determine  the land   revenue  assessment.   What  is  the  scope  of   the operations  conducted  to arrive at the said result  ?   The provisions  of Ch.  VIII-A lay down the successive steps  to be  followed  by the authorities concerned to fix  the  land revenue.  -Under  s. 117D, the Government may  at  any  time direct a settlement of the land revenue of any land of which revenue  survey  has been made under s. 95 or not.   It  may also  direct  at any time a revised settlement of  the  land revenue  of such lands.  A settlement once made  remains  in force  for  a  period  of  thirty  years  unless  the  State Government  directs that it should remain in force  for  any period  less than thirty years.  In a case where  a  revised settlement of land revenue has not been made for one  reason or  other,  the  Government  may  extend  the  term  of  the settlement  for such period as it may think fit.   The  land revenue assessment shall be determined by dividing the lands to  be settled into different groups and fixing  a  standard rate  for  each group.  Groups are ordinarily  formed  on  a consideration   of   various  factors   such   as   physical configuration,   climate,  rainfall,  price  and  yield   of principal  crop  and other  relevant  considerations.   Land revenue of individual survey numbers and sub-divisions shall be  based  on their classification and value in  the  manner prescribed.   The Settlement Officer, who is entrusted  with the  duty  of  making  the  settlement,  shall  follow   the prescribed procedure and fix a standard rate for each  class of  land  in each group on a consideration of  the  relevant factors.   A  hierarchy  of Tribunals are  created  for  the persons aggrieved to take the matter in appeal.  Finally the State Government passes orders approving the standard  rates or  varying  them.  After the State  Government  has  passed orders  and  the notice of the same has been  given  in  the prescribed  manner, settlement will be deemed to  have  been introduced  and  land revenue according to  such  settlement will  be levied from such date as the State  Government  may direct.   It will be seen from the aforesaid summary of  the scheme of land revenue settlement that land revenue is fixed for each land, having regard to the group 920 within which it falls.  All such settlements of  landrevenue made before the Bombay Land Revenue (Amendment) Code,  1939, will be deemed to remain in force until the introduction  of a revised settlement. Part  II  of  the Taluqdars’ Act  provided  for  survey  and settlement.  Under s. 4 of the Taluqdars’ Act, the  Governor

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

in  Council might direct a revenue survey of  the  taluqdari estate  under  the provisions of the Code.   The  settlement register  prepared  under  that Code  was  directed  contain particulars mentioned in s. 5 such as area and assessment of such  survey-number,  etc.   Presumably, under  that  Act  a settlement  was made in regard to the taluqdari estates  and settlement registers were prepared fixing the assessment  of each  survey-number.  That settlement would certainly  be  a settlement of land revenue within the meaning of s. 117R  of the  Code  and  that would continue to be in  force  till  a resettlement was made. Part   IV   of  the  Taluqdars’  Act  dealt   with   Revenue Administration.   Section 22 laid down that in a case  where survey-settlement  had been extended to a taluqdari  estate, the jama payable by the taluqdar to Government in respect of such  an  estate  shall  be the  aggregate  of  the  survey- assessments  of  the  lands composing such  estate  or  such portion thereof minus such deduction, if any, as  Government shall  direct in each case.  Under sub-s. (2) of s. 22,  the Governor  in  Council could declare the amount  of  jama  so ascertained  fixed for any term not exceeding thirty  years. Under  s.  23, nothing in the Act was deemed to  affect  the validity of any agreement thereto-before entered into by  or with  a taluqdar and still in force as to the amount of  his jama, nor of any settlement of the amount of jama made by or under the orders of Government for a term of years and still in force.  Sections 22 and 23 provided for the  arrangements entered  into  or to be entered into with  the  Governor  in Council  in  respect of the jama payable by  the  taluqdars. Section  23 saved the previous agreements or settlements  in respect  of the jama.  Section 22 authorised the  Government to  fix  the  jama, having regard to the  aggregate  of  the survey assessments of the lands and to declare 921 the  same fixed for a period of years not exceeding  thirty. The declaration- under a. 22 or the agreement or  settlement of jama mentioned in s. 23(1) might be described broadly  as a  settlement  entered  into between the  Government  and  a taluqdar but it was not a settlement of land-revenue  within the  meaning  of  S. 117R of the  Code,  for  settlement  of revenue  was the result of operations carried on in  respect of  different classes of lands in the manner  prescribed  by Ch.   VIII.  A of the Code or the settlement in  respect  of such  lands in accordance with the pre-existing laws it  was beyond  the  scope of Ch.  VIII-A to  ascertain’  the  jama, though the rates fixed under such a settlement were taken as the basis by the Government in ascertaining the jama payable by  the  taluqdar.   The jama payable by  the  taluqdar  was distinct  from the revenue assessment of the land  comprised in the taluqdari estate and they could not be equated. Section 17 of the Abolition Act repealed the Taluqdars’  Act and expressly provided that the repeal of the said enactment shall  not affect any declaration made or any  agreement  or settlement  recognized in respect of the taluqdari  estates. Section  5(2) (b) of the Abolition Act expressly  saved  the agreement  or  settlement  recognized  under  s.  23  or   a declaration  made under s. 22 from the operation of the  Act till  such agreement, settlement or declaration remained  in force.  It is, therefore, manifest that the declaration made under  the  Taluqdars’ Act enured to the  advantage  of  the taluqdars, notwithstanding the repeal of the Taluqdars’ Act, till such time it was in force.  When the Abolition Act came into  force,  the time mentioned in the declaration  in  the cases  before  us, i.e., thirty years, had not run  out  and therefore  the declaration made by the Government under  the

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

Taluqdars’ Act continued to be in force till 1955-56.  After the expiry of the time, the appellants would be liableto pay the   entire  land-revenue  according  to   the   settlement register. The  entire scheme of the Abolition Act was that  after  the passing of that Act, the taluqdars became 116 922 occupants with the result that they would be liable to  pay- land  revenue in accordance with the provisions of the  Land Revenue Code.  If sub-s. (2) was not inserted in s. 5,  they would  be  liable  to  pay  land-revenue  under  the   Code, notwithstanding  the  declaration  made  or  the   agreement entered  into by the Government with them in regard  to  the jama  payable by them.  Sub-section (2) was only enacted  to preserve  to them the concession till the period  fixed  had expired.   We, therefore, hold that the declaration made  by the  Governor in Council in 1925-26 expired in  1955-56  and the appellants became liable to pay the entire  land-revenue according to the settlement registers from the year 1955-56. In  the result, all the appeals and the Writ  Petitions  are dismissed with costs., the State of Bombay and the Collector of  Ahmedabad, who are the respondents herein,  getting  one set of hearing costs in all. Petitions dismissed.