http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: NAVINCHANDRA  BABUBHAI NAGARSHETH AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BOMBAY REVENUE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/01/1966

BENCH: SARKAR, A.K. BENCH: SARKAR, A.K. MUDHOLKAR, J.R. BACHAWAT, R.S.

CITATION:  1966 AIR 1509            1966 SCR  (3) 412

ACT: Bombay  Personal Inams  Abolition, Act (42 of 1953), ss.  5, 17(1)  and  (5)-Grant  of  land  with  exemption  regarding, payment of land revenue--Inam  abolished-Inamdsr’s right  to compensation.

HEADNOTE: The  appellants were holders of shares in Inam villages.  on the, Inams being abolished by Bombay Personal In  Abolition ACt, 1953 they claimed compensation for their Inam under  s. 17(1)  of the Act.  By a. 17(5).  "Nothing is  this  section shall entitle any person to compensation on the ground  that any  inam village, or inam land which has (sic.)  wholly  or partially  exempt from the payment of land revenue has  been under the provision of this Act made subject to the  payment of full assessment in accordance with the ;provisions of the Code ." section 5 of the Act provide,               "(i) All inam villages or inam, lands are  and               shall be liable to the Payment of land revenue               in accordance with the provisions of the  Code               and  rules made thereunder and the  provisions               the Code and the rules relating to unalienated               land shall apply to such lands.                (12) (a)  An inamdar in respect of  the  inam               land in his actual Possession or in possession               of a person holding from him other than  ’an               inferior  holder, referred to in  clause-  (b)               below or                (b)  an inferior holder holding inam land  on               payment   of  annual  assessment  only   shall               Primarily  be liable to the  State  Government               for  the  payment  of  land  revenue,  due  in               respect of such land held by him and shall  be               entitled to all the rights and shall be liable               to all obligations in respect of such land  as               An  ocupant under the Code or the  rules  made               thereunder  or,  any other law  for  the  time               being in force." HELD (Per Sarkar J.) (1).  On a construction of the Sanad by which  the inams were granted, the,grants were  of  villages and  exemption from land revenue as mentioned, 14 s.  17(5).

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

Mat the tenants paid to the Inamdars was not something which was  due  to  the Government which,  the  Inamdars  kept  to themselves but was Tent due to the Inamdars. [414 G;415 C] Even after the survey in the Inam villages in 1900 under the Bombay  Land  Revenue Code, 1879 the Inamdars  remained  the grantees of the soil exempt from payment of revenue and  the tenants  remained  liable,  as before, to pay  rent  to  the Inamdars. [415 E-F] (2)  Section  5 of the Act does not show that  the  Inamdars were  claiming compensation for the loss of money that  they used  to  collect from the inferior holders,  the  right  to which collection was abolished by the Act and, therefore  s. 17(5)  did not apply to them.  The fact that under a. 5  the Inamdar has not himself been made liable for ’the revenue in respect  of the land held by the inferior holders,  made  no differentce.  By s. 5 an 7                             413 Inamdar  has  been deprived of his right to  the  assessment from the inferior holders and the inferior holders have been made  liable  to  pay  that  assesment  to  the  Government. Therefore,  in actual result, the Inamdar has been  deprived of  his right to the assessment because the land  has,  been made  subject  to the payment of land revenue  and  he  was, therefore covered by s. 17 (5.). [416 E-G] Per  Mudholkar,  J. : Section 5 (1) of the  Bombay  Personal Inams  Abolition  Act, 1953, creates liability  to  pay  and revenue  to  the Government with respect to inam  laads,  in accordance  with the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879.  Where lands were in possession inferior holders s.  5(2) (b) places the liability, on the inferior  holders. The   loss  resulting  to  the  inamdars  is   the.   direct consequence of the operation of these provisions.  Therefore s. 17(5) of the Act bars the claim for compensation for loss of the right of the appellants to recover from the  inferior holders  land  revenue,  assessed ’on  the  lands  in  their posmsion. [419 C-E] Per Bachawat, I The  grants of the villages,. on   the      construction  of the deeds  were grants of villages Partial  exetmption  from payment of land revenue and were personal    of the category specified  in  s. 2(1) (e) (i).  The  introduction  of,  the survey settlement made no difference in the character pi the inams.   After  the  Abolition-.Act,; the  lands  no  longer enjoyed  either total or Spartial exemption from payment  of land  revenue.  By s. 5 (.1) of the Act, all inam lands  are now liable to payment of full land revenus By s. 5 (2)  (b), in respect of lands held by   inferior holders the  inferior holders now enjoy the status of occupants, and are liable to pay the land revenue directly to the State Government.   The appellants  were  not  entitl ed to  claim  compensation  in respect   of  the  abolition  of  their  right  to   recover assessment from the inferior hoders, because such a claim is really on the ground that the inam lands which were formerly exempt from payment of land I revenue have been subjected by the  Act  to payment of full assessment.  Such  a  claim  is based by s. 17(5). A  grant of village or land with total or partial  exemption of  land  revenue is essentially different from a  grant  of land  revenue and the distinction has been Preserved by  the Act,  On  the extension of the, grant of land  revenue,  the "namdar  lows  all right in respect of the grant and  he  is therefore entitled to full compensation order s. 17(1).   On the other  hand,  on.  abolition of  the  grant  of  an.-in= village  or land the inamdar is allowed to retain and  enjoy

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

various  rights  and benefits, but at the  6’ .Me  time  the right  to compensation under s. 17(1) is subject to the  bar of [420 H-421 H]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil, "Appeals Nos.  10481050 of 1963. Appeals     from     the    judgment     and     debreedated September  1958 of the Bombay High Court iii  special  Civil Applications Nos.. 1100, 1161 and 1162 of 1958. D.   B. Padhya, J. B. Nagar and.  A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for  the appellants (in all the appeals). S.   G.  Patwardhan, and R. H. Dhebar, for  the  respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (in all the three appeals). 414 The following Judgments were delivered Sarkar, J. These three appeals concern compensation  payable under  the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1952 to  the appellants  for  abolition  of their  inams.   Some  of  the appellants held shares in the inam village of Wanz and  some in that of Dindoli.  The appellants had moved the High Court at  Bombay by several petitions under Arts. 226 and  227  of the  Constitution  for quashing the decision of  the  Bombay Revenue Tribunal regarding the compensation.  The  petitions were  disposed  of by the High Court by a  common  judgment. These appeals are against that judgment under a  certificate granted by the High Court. The appellants had claimed compensation under several  heads based  on  different grounds but two of them  survive.   The first  is that the appellants are entitled  to  compensation for loss of assessment payable to them by inferior  holders, a  special class, of tenants holding lands from  them.   The Act  does not expressly provide for compensation in  respect of such lands.  Sub-section (1) of S. 17 of the Act  however provides  that if any person is aggrieved by the  provisions of  the Act abolishing any of his rights to or  interest  in property and if compensation for such abolition has not been provided  for,  such person may apply to the  Collector  for compensation.   The  appellants, base their  claim  on  this section.   Sub-on (5) of this section makes the right  under sub-s. (1) unavailable in a certain case and the question is whether the appellant’s claim fell within it.  Now the  sub- section is in these terms:                S.   17(5)-Nothing  in  this  section   shall               entitle  any  person to  compensation  on  the               ground that any inam village   or  inam   land               which  has (sic.) wholly or  partially  exempt               from  the  payment of land  revenue  has  been               under the provisions of this Act made  subject               to   the   payment  of  full   assessment   in               accordance with the provisions of the Code. Clearly  this sub-section applies only to a certain kind  of claim for compensation in respect of an inam village  exempt from  payment  of land revenue.  The  appellants   say  that their inams were not of this kind and so the subsection does not  affect  their claim.  According to  them,  their  inams consisted of a grant of land re. venue only.  The nature  of an inam depends on the sanad or the terms of the grant.  The High  Court  held on a construction of the sanads  that  the inams  were grants of the villages with exemption from  land revenue,  because the words of the grant conveyed  the  soil and  rights  over  trees, water, mines etc.   This  view  is obviously correct.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

The appellants then said that notwithstanding that the  soil had  been  granted, their inams were none the less  of  land revenue  only.  Their contention is that before  the  grants the tenants in                             415 occupation paid revenue to the Government and thereafter  to the inamdars and the latter being exempt from the  liability to  pay it over to the Government, the net result  was  that the inamdars retained the land revenue and were,  therefore, the  grantees  thereof This contention is  idle.   There  is nothing to show that there were tenants holding lands in the villages before the grants which were made in 1794 and  1803 respectively and whether they paid anything and if so,  what ?  Furthermore,  what  the  tenants  paid  to  the  inamdars (holders  of  the inams) after the grants was rent  and  not revenue; it was for the inamdars to fix the amount of it  or forego  it  altogether if they so liked.  What  the  tenants paid to the inamdars. was not something which was due to the Government which the inamdars kept to themselves having been exempted   from  the  liability  to  pay  it  over  to   the Government; it was rent due to the inamdars. It was next said that whatever might have been the  position earlier,  after  the  introduction  of  the  survey  in  the villages  in 1900 under the Bombay Land Revenue  Code,  1879 what  a tenant paid to, an inamdar was land revenue.   There is  no justification for this. contention either.  No  doubt since the introduction of the survey the amounts payable  by the  tenants  to the inamdars were all  assessed  under  the Code.  The nature of the assessment payable was not  however altered thereby nor did it become land revenue.  The  survey fixed  the  amount payable by, a tenant to the  inamdar  and gave him certain rights.  It also conferred certain benefits on the inamdar in the matter of the realisation of his dues. The  fact  that the assessment was made in the same  way  as land  revenue.  made no difference.  It did not  change  the right  to  the  assessment.  Notwithstanding  all  this  the inamdar  remained the grantee of the soil and a  person  who was not liable to pay revenue in respect of it and  likewise the  tenant  remained liable as before to pay  rent  to  the inamdar. Furthermore,  the  distinction  between  the  two  kinds  of grants,  is well recognised and has been maintained  by  the Act by specifying in s. 2 (1)(e) that an inam means a  grant of  a  village  with exemption from liability  to  pay  land revenue  and  also  a  grant  of  land  revenue  only.   The appellants’  contention  would  in  effect  wipe  out   this distinction and cannot therefore be accepted. The appellants then contended that even if their inams  were grants of villages exempt from payment of land revenue, sub- s.  (5) of s. 17 did not bar their claim because  they  were not  claiming  compensation  on the  ground  that  the  inam villages previously exempted from land revenue had under the Act  been made subject to it.  They say that they have not been made liable to pay land revenue themselves and are only claiming  the  loss of the money that they used  to  collect from the inferior holders, the right to- 416 which collection was abolished by the Act.  This  contention is based on s. 5 of the Act which is set out below:               S.    5.  (1) All inam villages or inam  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 the               provisions of the Code and the rules  relating               to unalienated land shall apply to such lands.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

             (2)(a) An inamdar in respect of the inam  land               in his actual possession or in possession of a               person holding from him other than an inferior               holder, referred to in clause(b) below, or               (b)   an inferior, holder holding inam land on               payment   of  annual  assessment  only   shall               primarily  be liable to the  State  Government               for  the  payment  of  land  Revenue,  due  in               respect of such land held by him and shall  be               entitled to all the rights and shall-be liable               to all obligations in respect of such land  as               an  occupant under the Code or the rules  made               thereunder  or  any other law,  for  the  time               being in force. It  seems  to ’me that this contention is also  without  any foundation.   The inamdar’s right to appropriate to  himself the  assessment  Axed by the survey and collected  from  the inferior holders existed on because’ be was exempt from the liability  to pay land ’revenue.  If he was not  so  exempt, then what he-collected from the inferior holders would  have to be paid over to the Government.  ’It would. follow  that the  loss for’ Which the appellants claim  compensation  was really occasioned by the lands being subjected to revenue by s. 5(2)(b).  The fact that the inamdar has not himself  been made liable for the revenue in respect of the lands held  by inferior holders makes no difference.  The substance of  the matter  is th the inamdar has been deprived of his right  to the  assessment from the inferior holders and  the  inferior holders have been made liable to pay that assessment to  the Government.   So  in  actual result  the  inamdar  has  been deprived of his right to the assessment because the land has been made subject to payment of land revenue.  His claim for the loss of assessment is,, therefore, in reality based  on the ground that the lands which were free from revenue  have been  made  subject to it.  Sub-section (5) of  s.  17  does provide that the bar mentioned in it operates only when land revenue is made payable the inamdar. It  also  seems to me that any other  interpretation   would lead to a result which could not have been intended.  It  is not  in dispute that for the loss. of rights in  respect  of lands in his own possession excepting those mentioned in  s. 7  or any lands in possession of persons holding  from   him other than as inferior holders an inamdar is ’not  entitled to compensation.  It is admitted that 417 such  compensation  could not be allowed in view of  s.   17 (5).   It  would be difficult to imagine a  reason  for  the legislature  to have made a distinction between  such  lands and lands in the possession of inferior holders. The  other part of the claim concerns the right  to  forfeit the ,inferior holders’ tenancies for nonpayment of rent  and the  right  of  reversion in respect  of  them.   These  the appellants,  have  no doubt lost.  The Collector  asked  the appellants  to produce evidence in support of  their  claims under this head.  They failed to do so.  They could not even cite  one  instance of the exercise of any such  right.   It would be impossible to ’value the loss in respect of them as no material for doing so, is on the record nor was furnished by,  the  appellants.  No compensation can,.  therefore,  be assessed or awarded for the loss of these rights. The result is that the appeals fail and they are  dismissed. There will be no’ order as to costs. Mudholkar,  J.  These  appeals are from a  judgment  of  the Bombay High Court dismissing the writ petitions preferred by the  ;appellants before it.  The appellants  art  co-sharers

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

either  in the former Inam village Wanz or in  the  former Inam  village  Dindoli, both of which are situate  in  Surat District.  Under the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition.   Act, 1952  all  personal  Inams were extinguished  and  all  Inam villages as well as all Inam lands were ,made liable to  the payment of land revenue in accordance with the provisions of the  Land  Revenue  Code.   The Act  did  not  provide for compensation  to  the Inamdars with respect to the  loss  of their  rights  to  hold their villages or  lands  free  from payment  of land revenue.  Under s. 10 of the Act,  however, compensation   to   the  Inmadars  was  provided   for   the extinguishment of certain rights possessed by them in  their Inam  villages.   Those  rights  vest,  by  virtue  of   the provisions of s. 7 of the Act, in the Government.   "Section 17(1)  of the Act provides for payment of compensation to  a person  aggrieved  by  the  provisions  of  the  Act   which abolished,  extinguished  or modified any of his  rights  or interests  in property .provided that compensation for  such abolition,  extinguishbment or modification of those  rights had  not ,been provided for in any of the provisions of  the Act.   To  this provision the following exception  has  been made in sub-section (5):               "Nothing  in  this section shall  entitle  any               person to compensation on the ground that  any               main village or inam land which has wholly  or               partially  exempt  from the  payment  of  land               revenue has been under the provisions of  this               Act  made  subject  to  the  payment  of  full               assessment  in accordance with the  provisions               of the Code."               418 It  is  common ground that in both the villages  there  were holders of land called inferior holders.  These were persons claiming  through  tillers  in  cultivating  possession   of different pieces of land in the Inam villages at the time of the  grant  of the Inams.  It is common  ground  that  their rights  to continue to be in possession of those  lands  and cultivate  them  were left in tact by the Inamdars  and  the grantees of the Inams were only entitled to claim rents from them.   It is common ground that under S. 216 of the  Bombay Land  Revenue Code, 1879 settlement was introduced  both  in Wanz  and  Dindoli villages though at  different  points  of time.  It is also the common case of the parties that  after the introduction of the survey, land revenue was assessed on the lands held by the inferior holders and in place of their liability to pay such rent as may be fixed from time to time by  the Inamdars they thenceforward were rendered liable  to pay  to  the Inamdar only the land revenue assessed  at  the settlement.   So  far as the Government  was  concerned  the grantees  of the villages Wanz and Dindoli were exempt  from paying land revenue not only in respect of lands held by the inferior  holders but also in respect of lands held  by  the Inamdars  themselves or held by persons holding through  the Inamdars.  Now, in consequence of the extinguishment of  the right of the Inamdars to hold the villages revenue free they have  been  rendered  liable to pay  land  revenue,  to  the Government in respect of the lands in their possession or in the   possession  of  persons  holding  through  them.    No liability  is,  however,  cast  upon  them  to  pay  to  the Government   land  revenue  in  respect  of  lands  in   the possession  of inferior holders.  This follows clearly  from s. 5 of the Act and is not disputed by either set of parties to  the appeal.  No compensation is expressely provided  for the  loss  of the right of the Inamdar to recover  from  the inferior holders land revenue assessed on the lands in their

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

possession.  Mr. Padhya contends that the appellants  would, therefore,  be entitled to claim compensation in respect  of this  loss under s. 17(1).  He points out that the  loss  of this right to the Inamdars is not occasioned because of  the fact  that  the Ina= villages were made liable to  pay  full assessment  but because the inferior holders have  now  been required to pay land revenue to the Government instead of to the bamdars.  It is difficult to accept this argument.   The relevant  provision of the Act for consideration  s.5  which runs thus:               "5(1)  AR inam villages or main 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   the               provisions of the Code and the rules  relating               to unalienated land shall apply to such lands.               (2)(a) An inamdar in respect of the inam  land               in his actual possession or in possession of a               person holding from               419               him other than an inferior holder, referred to               in clause (b) below, or               (b)   an inferior holder holding inam land  on               payment   of  annual  assessment  onlv   shall               primarily  be liable to the  State  Government               for the payment of land revenue due in respect               of such land held by him ano shall be entitled               to  all the rights and shall be liable to  all               obligations  in  respect of such  land  as  an               occupant  under  the Code or  the  rules  made               thereunder  or  any other law  for  ’the  time               being in force."               .lm0               It  is sub-section (1) of this  section  which               creates  liability to pay land revenue.   Sub-               section (2) then proceeds to say as to who  is               made  liable to pay land revenue: the  Inamdar               or  holder  from the Inamdar  or  an  inferior               holder.  Clause (b) of sub-s. (2) which  deals               with the liability placed on inferior  holders               has, therefore, to be read with sub-s. (1) and               when  they are so read it would be clear  that               the  loss  resulting  to the  Inamdar  is  the               direct  consequence of the operation of  these               provisions.   In other words it is the  direct               consequence of the provisions of the Act  that               lands  in possession of inferior  holders  are               made   liable  to  pay  full  assessment   "in               accordance  with the provisions of the  Code".               This in the context means, liable to pay  full               assessment to the Government.  It is true that               by  making  this provision the  Inamdars  have               sustained  loss  of  one of  their  rights  in               property.  it  is also true that if  s.  17(1)               does  not  apply-as  in my view  it  does  not               applyno   compensation  is  payable   to   the               Inamdars.   However, as no argument  has  been               raised before us that the aforesaid  provision               of    the   Act   infringes   the    guarantee               incorporated in Art. 31(1) of the Constitution               and   is,  therefore,   unconstitutional   the               provisions of s. 5 of the Act must be held  to               be fully operative.               It  was faintly urged by learned counsel  that               the Inamdar’s right of reversion and right  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

             escheat  have also been taken away by the  Act               and  no compensation is provided foe  it.   No               provision was, however, brought to our  notice               by virtue of which it could be said that these               rights  of  the  Inamdars  have  at  all  been               touched by the Act.  Even assuming that  these               rights  have  been taken away it seems  to  me               that  the grounds given by the High Court  for               rejecting the appellants claim are cogent  and               adequate  In the ’result, therefore,  I  agree               that  the appeals be dismissed.  I would  make               no order as to costs.               Bachawat,  J. The appellants were  holders  of               shares  in inam villages; some held shares  in               the  inam village of Wanz, others held  shares               in  the  inam village of Dindoli.   The  inams               were  abolished by the Bombay  Personal  Inams               Abolition Act, 1952.  By s. 4 of the Act, save               as expressly provided by or under the Act, all               rights in the inams were extinguished Sections               10   and   17(1)  provided  for   payment   of               compensation.  In view of sub-S. (5) of  s.17,  no compensation- can be claimed under sub-s. (1)  of s. 17 on the ground that any inam village or inam land which was wholly or partially exempt from payment of land  revenue has  been under the Act made subject to the payment of  full assessment.   The appellants filed claims  for  compensation under  ss. 10 and 17 (1) of the Act before the Collector  of Surat.  We are now-concerned with the following. two  claims for  compensation. under s. 17(1) of the Act: (1)  loss  for the  abolition  of the right of the  appellants  to  recover assessment  from  the inferior: holders in  respect  of  the lands  in their possession; (2) loss for the  extinction  of the  right of reversion and forfeiture in respect  of  those lands.   The  Collect-or  of surat and  the  Bombay  Revenue Tribunal concurrently held that the claim for  compensation, in  respect of the first item was barred by s. 17(5) of  the Act  and in respect of the claim under the second head,  the appellants  failed  to prove that they sustained  any  loss. The appellants filed applications under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the High Court at Bombay challenging the:   Correctness  of  these  findings.   The  High   Court dismissed the ’applications. Section  2(1)(e) of the Act, classifies personal inams  into two  categories.’  The appellants Content that  their  inams were grants of land revenue and therefore personal inams  of the second category specified in s. 2(1)(e)(ii).  In respect of the personal inam’ of the second category, the bar of s-. 17(5) is not attracted.  On the other’ hand, the respondents contend  that the inams in question were grants of  villages partially  exempt  from  payment of the  land  revenue,  and therefore personal, inams of the first category specified in s’  2(1)(e)(i).  In respect of personal inams of  the  first category, the. bar of s. 17(5) is attracted.  The High Court held-and,  in  my opinion, rightly that the  grants  of  the villages,  on  their true construction were  grants  of  the soil.   The  inamdars  were not required  to  pay  any  land revenue   except  the  quit  rent  and  some   small   haqs. Consequently,  the  grants  were grants  of  villages  with) partial exemption from payment of, the land revenue and were Personal  inams,  of  the first  category  specified  in  s. l(1)(e)(i). The  survey and settlement of the villages under s.  216  of the  Land-  Revenue  Code, 1879 made no  difference  in  the character  of  the inams.  The introduction  of  the  survey

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

settlement  did  not  confer on  the  inferior  holders  the status,  of  occupants, nor render them liable to  pay  land revenue  to the Government,, they continued to, be  inferior holders under the inamdar and liable to Day the  assessments to  him.   In spite of the survey settlement,  the  villages continued  to be alienated villages and the inams  continued to be personal inams of the first category referred to in s. 2(1)(e)(i) of the Act. The High Court rightly held that the appellants are not en.; titled to claim compensation in, respect of the abolition of their 421 421 right to recover assessment from the inferior holders.   The inam  lands’  no  longer enjoyed  either  total  or  partial exemption from, payment of land revenue.  By s. 5(1) of  the Act,  all inam lands are now liable to payment of full  land revenue.   By  s.  5(2)(b),  in respect  of  lands  held  by inferior holders on payment of assessment only, the inferior holders now enjoy the status of occupants, and are liable to pay  the land revenue directly to the State Government.   In respect of those lands, the inamdars are neither entitled to collect the assessment from the inferior holders nor  liable to.  pay  land, revenue to the State  Government.   Had  the appellants’  right to recover assessment from  the  inferior holders   not been abolished, they would have been  entitled to  recover the, amounts. of assessments from  the  inferior holders  and at the same time would have been liable to  pay the  identical amounts to the Government on account of  land revenue.   The  loss consequential on the abolition  of  the right  to recover assessment is, therefore, nil.  The  claim under this head is really on the ground that the. inam lands which were formerly exempt from payment of land revenue have been  subjected  by the Act to payment of  full  assessment. Such a claim is barred by s. 17(5) of the Act. With  regard to the claim for compensation under the  second head, the High Court rightly held that the appellants  could not establish any loss under this head.  They failed to show that  they exercised any right of forfeiture or claimed  any right  of  reversion  at  any time.  I  see  no  reason  for disturbing  the finding of the High Court and the  Tribunals below on this point. The  appellants submit that in view of the ephemeral  nature of  their rights of reversion and forfeiture in  respect  of the  lands  held  by the inferior  holders,  the  grants  of villages,  as  far  as  they  relate  to  those  lands,  are assimilated to grants of land revenue.. They submit that the High  Court and the Tribunals below while holding  that  the only  right of the appellants in respect of those lands  was to  recover the assessments from the inferior holders,  have inconsistently and unjustly held that the grants were grants of   inam villages and not of land revenue so as to  attract the bar of s.  17(5).  This submission is not  well-founded. A grant of a village or  land   with   total   or    partial exemption  from  payment  of  land  revenue  is  essentially different from a grant of land revenue, and the  distinction has  been  preserved by the Act.  On the extinction  of  the grant  of  land  revenue, the inamdar loses  all  rights  in respect  of the grant, and he is therefore entitled to  full compensation  under  s.  s. 17(1).  On the  other  hand,  on abolition  of  the  grant of an inam village  or  land,  the inamdar  is allowed to retain and enjoy various  rights  and benefits  arising out of the grant.  Section  5(2)(a)  gives him  the  rights of an occupant in respect of lands  in  his actual  possession or in possession of persons holding  from

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

him other than 422 inferior  holders.  The grants of inam lands, on their  true construction,  may  include the right to  mines  or  mineral products  see  Secretary  of State for  India  v.  Shantaram Naravan(1),  and  this  right of the  inamdar,  if  any,  is preserved  by  s. 9 ’of the Act.  By S. 10 of  the  Act  the inamdar  holding  inam  villages or  lands  is  entitled  to compensation  in  respect of any right or interest  in any property  referred  to  in  S. 7. He  is  also  entitled  to compensation  under S. 17(1), but this right is  subject  to the provisions of S. 17(5).  It will appear, therefore, that the  Act  treats  the  inams of  the  two  ,categories  very differently.   While  the holder of the inam  of  the  first category  referred  to  in s. 2(1)(e)(i)  suffers  from  the disadvantage  of  the  bar  of  s.  17  (5)  in  respect  of compensation, he enjoys numerous advantages which are denied to the holder of the inam of the second category referred to in s. 2(i)(e)(ii). The appeals fail, and are dismissed.  There will be no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed. (1) (1925) 1. L. R. 49 Bom. 99. 423