http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: SHRISHAILAGOUDA AND OTHERS ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GURUSANGAPPA RAMASOMAPPA DESAI AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT29/07/1980

BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. SHINGAL, P.N.

CITATION:  1980 AIR 1759            1981 SCR  (1) 116

ACT:      Bombay Pargana  and Kulkarni  Watans  (Abolition)  Act, 1950, Section  4, scope  of-Regrant  of  watan  lands  under section 4  of the  1950 Act has no nexus to the rejection of an application  under section  10 Bombay  Hereditary Offices Act (Act  III of  1874)-Grant was of the soil and not of the royal share of the revenue.

HEADNOTE:      The respondent’s  ancestors  continuously  enjoyed  the watan property through the years since the 17th century when it was granted and performed the duties of the office of the watandar in spite of political changes in the country. After the death  of the  then holder  of the  watan  in  1851,  an enquiry into the rights of his son Bhimrao was started under the Bombay  Rent Free  Estates Act, 1852 and later in 1863 a settlement known  as  "Gordon  Settlement"  was  made  under section 15 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, (Act III of 1874), whereby  a sanad was issued by the British Government to the  respondent’s ancestor  Bhimrao in 1872. The Sanad is in the  standard form  of a  Gordan Sanad  and says that the lands and  cash allowances  shall  be  continued  in  lineal succession from  generation to  generation on condition that the persons  in enjoyment  and their heirs shall be obedient to the  British Government  and act  faithfully and honestly and shall  go on paying to Government permanently every year the amount mentioned in the Sanad.      In 1874  some of these watan lands were auction-sold in execution of  a money  decree obtained  by  the  appellants’ ancestors and as a result of a compromise decree obtained in 1912, the  ancestors of the appellant, being decree holders, were allowed  to be  in possession of these lands during the life time  of  Bhimrao  and  his  adopted  son  Ramasomappa. Bhimrao died  in 1918  and Ramasomappa in 1944. Section 5 of the Bombay  Hereditary Offices  Act, 1874 forbids a watandar to alienate  the watan  property beyond  his lifetime to any person not a watandar of the same watan. After Ramasomappa’s death therefore  the appellants  ceased to have any right to continue in possession of the lands. Respondent Gurusangappa is Ramasomappa’s son.      Consequent on  the coming  into  force  of  the  Bombay Pargana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950 abolishing the watans,  the watan  lands were  resumed  and  were  made

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

subject to  the payment  of  land  revenue  subject  to  the provisions of  section 4.  Respondent Gurusangappa  and also the appellants  applied  to  the  prescribed  authority  for regrant of  the aforesaid watan lands under section 4 of the Act. Earlier  to this  an application  made in  1947 made on behalf of  respondent Gurusangappa  under section  10 of the Bombay Hereditary  Offices Act, 1874 when he was a minor was rejected.      The appellants  lost before  all authorities  under the Act who held that the respondent was the holder of the watan and was  as such entitled to an order of regrant. The Mysore Revenue Appellant Tribunal, Belgaum however 117 set aside  in revision the order of regrant in favour of the respondent. The  High Court allowed the writ petition of the respondent challenging the order of the Revenue Tribunal and restored the order of regrant in his favour.      Dismissing the appeal from the order of the High Court, the Court, ^      HELD :  (1) On the facts found by the authorities under the 1950  Act except  the Revenue  Tribunal  the  respondent would be clearly entitled to the Watan lands being regranted to him  under section  4 of  the Act.  All  the  authorities including  the   Revenue  Tribunal   having  held  that  the appellants were strangers to the watan and, therefore, could not ask for an order under section 4 in their favour and the appellants not  having challenged this finding it has become final. [120E-F]      Collector of  South Satara and another v. Laxman Madhay Deshpande and others [1964] 2 SCR 48, followed.      (2) The  Sanad granted  to Bhimrao  in 1872  was on the basis that there was a watan and that Bhimrao was the holder of the  watan. The  Sanad of  1872 granted only the right to hold the  watan lands free from full assessment. The Revenue Tribunal was  wrong in  thinking that  the Sanad granted the royal share of the revenue. [120G-H]      Ramasomappa Bhimrao Desai v. The Secretary of State for India in  Council, 39  Bom. L.  R. 851,  explained and  held inapplicable.      (3) Section  10 of  the Bombay  Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 empowered  the Collector  to issue a certificate on the basis of  which the respondent could bring an action against the appellants  for recovery of possession of the lands. The rejection of  the application under section 10 of the Act is not a matter relevant to the issue whether the respondent is entitled to  a regrant of the watan lands under section 4 of the 1950 Act. [122A-B, C]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 345 to 348 of 1969.      From the  Judgment and  Order dated  20-7-1967  of  the Mysore High  Court in  Writ Petition  Nos. 1016  to 1018 and 1031/64.      R. B. Datar for the Appellants.      S.  S.  Javali,  Mukul  Mudgal  and  Vineer  Kumar  for Respondent No. 1.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      GUPTA,  J.   These  four  appeals  by  certificate  are directed against  an order  dated July  20, 1967 of the High Court of  Mysore at  Bangalore allowing  four writ petitions made by  the first  respondent before us (hereinafter called

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

the respondent).  By  the  impugned  order  the  High  Court reversed  the  decision  of  the  Mysore  Revenue  Appellate Tribunal and  restored the  order passed  by  the  Assistant Commissioner under  section 4  of  the  Bombay  Pargana  and Kulkarni Watans  (Abolition) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 1950 Act). The 118 Assistant Commissioner’s  order directing regrant of a watan land to  the respondent  had  been  affirmed  by  the  other authorities under  the 1950  Act before the Revenue Tribunal set it  aside. The  four writ  petitions relate to different parcels of the said watan land.      The relevant  facts which  have been  found or admitted are as  follows. The  lands in  question are  paragana watan lands. "Paragana  watan" has been defined in section 2(e) of the 150 Act to mean "a watan appertaining to the office of a hereditary District (Paragana) Officer in respect of which a commutation settlement  has been effected........" The watan in question  was originally  acquired in the 17th century by an ancestor  of the  respondent  during  the  reign  of  the Adilshahi Kings  of Bijapur  in recognition  of the services rendered by  him. Except  the Revenue  Tribunal,  the  other authorities  under  the  1950  Act,  namely,  the  Assistant Commissioner, the  Deputy Commissioner  and  the  Divisional Commissioner found that the grant was of the soil and not of the royal  share of  the revenue.  The respondent’s ancestor continued to  enjoy the watan property through the years and perform the  duties of  the office  of watandar  in spite of political changes  in the  country. After  the death  of the then holder  of the Watan in 1851, Government challenged the right of  his son Bhimrao to the privileges of the Watan. An inquiry into  the rights  of Bhimrao  was started  under the Bombay Rent  Free Estates  Act, 1852  (known as  Inam  Act). Ultimately, in  1863 a  settlement was  reached between  the British Government  and Bhimrao. The terms of the settlement was similar  to those  of the  other settlements  arrived at between the  British Government  and various other watandars under which the British Government relieved the watandars of the liability  to perform  the services  attached  to  their offices in  consideration of a fixed annual sum charged upon the watan  lands. This  is  commonly  known  as  the  Gordon Settlement because  it was  entered into  by a  committee of which Mr. Gordon as Collector was Chairman, acting on behalf of the  Government. The settlement was apparently made under section 15  of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act (Act III of 1974), commonly known as the Watan Act. The relevant part of section 15 of this Act is as follows:           "The Collector may, with the consent of the holder      of a watan, given in writing, relieve him and his heirs      and successors  in perpetuity  of  their  liability  to      perform   service   upon   such   conditions,   whether      consistent with  the provisions  of this Act or not, as      may be agreed upon by the Collector and such holder.           Every settlement  made  or  confirmed  under  this      section shall  be binding  upon both Government and the      holder of the watan and his heirs and successors." 119 Following the  settlement, a Sanad was issued by the British Government to  respondent’s ancestor  Bhimrao in  1972.  The Sanad is  in the  standard form  of a  Gordon Sanad and says that the  lands and  cash allowances  shall be  continued in lineal succession from generation to generation on condition that the  persons in  enjoyment and  their  heirs  shall  be obedient to  the British  Government and  act faithfully and honestly and  shall go  on paying  to Government permanently

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

every year the amount as mentioned in the Sanad.      The effect  of commutation of service on watan property has been  considered by this Court in The Collector of South Satara  and   another  v.   Laxman  Mahadev   Deshpande  and others.(1) After  referring to  the  definitions  of  "watan property" and "hereditary offices" in section 3 of the Watan Act this Court observed:           "It is  clear that the watan property, if any, the      hereditary  office,   and  the  rights  and  privileges      attached  thereto,  together  constitute  a  watan  and      hereditary office  does not  lose its  character merely      because the  service  originally  appertaining  to  the      office  has  ceased  to  be  demanded.  Computation  of      service does  not, therefore,  in  the  absence  of  an      express agreement  to that  effect after  the tenure of      the land  held as  watan. By  agreement the  State, for      consideration, may  agree to  relieve the holder of the      office and  his successors of the duties to perform the      service for  purposes of  which the grant was made, but      the office and the grant continue, subject to the terms      of the  settlement  under  section  15  of  the  Bombay      Hereditary Offices Act, 1874."      It is  necessary to state a few more facts touching the watan lands  in question.  In 1874  some of these lands were auction-sold in  execution of a money decree obtained by the ancestors  of   the  appellants   against  the  respondent’s ancestors. Ultimately in 1912 a compromise decree was passed concluding the dispute between the parties in terms of which the decree holders were allowed to be in possession of these lands during  the life  time of  Bhimrao and his adopted son Ramasomappa. The  present respondent  is Ramasomappa’s  son. Bhimrao  died   in  1918  and  Ramasomappa  in  1944.  After Ramasomappa’s death  the appellants ceased to have any right to continue  in possession  of the  lands. Section  5 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 (Watan Act) also forbids a  watandar  to  alienate  his  watan  property  beyond  his lifetime to any person not a watandar of the same watan.      The 1950 Act abolished the paragana and Kulkarni watans from the date the Act came into force. Under section 3(3) of this Act 120 all watan  land was  resumed and  was made  subject  to  the payment of land revenue subject to the provisions of section 4. Section 4(1) provides:           "A watan land resumed under the provisions of this      Act shall..............  be regranted  to the holder of      the watan  to which  it appertained,  on payment of the      occupancy price  equal to twelve times of the amount of      full assessment  of such  land................ and  the      holder shall  be deemed  to be  an occupant  within the      meaning of the Code [Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879] in      respect of  such land  and shall primarily be liable to      pay land revenue State Government............ ". The appellants  and  the  respondent  both  applied  to  the prescribed authority  for regrant  of  the  aforesaid  watan lands to  them under  section 4  of the  Act. The  Assistant Commissioner, Jamkhandi,  held that  the respondent  was the holder of  the watan and as such was entitled to an order of regrant. On  appeal preferred  by the  appellants the Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur,  affirmed the  order of the Assistant Commissioner.   The    Divisional   Commissioner,   Belgaum, dismissed  the  appeal  against  the  order  of  the  Deputy Commissioner filed  by the  appellants. The  Mysore  Revenue Appellate Tribunal.  Belgaum   Bench, allowed  the  revision application made  by the  appellants setting aside the order

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

of regrant  in favour  of the  respondent. The High Court of Mysore at  Bangalore allowed  the writ petitions made by the respondent challenging the order of the Revenue Tribunal and restored the order of regrant in his favour.      On the  facts found  by the  authorities under the 1950 Act except  the Revenue  Tribunal, the  respondent would  be clearly entitled  to the  watan lands being regranted to him under section  4 of  the Act.  All the authorities including the Revenue Tribunal held that the appellants were strangers to the  watan and therefore could not ask for an order under section  4  in  their  favour;  the  appellants  not  having challenged this  finding it  has become  final. The  Revenue Tribunal however was of the view that under the Sanad issued in favour  of the respondent’s ancestor what was granted was only the  royal share  of the revenue, it was not a grant of the soil,  and that  as such the lands in question could not be regranted  to the  respondent under  section 4. The facts stated earlier  make it  clear that the Sanad was granted on the basis  that there  was a watan and that the respondent’s ancestor Bhimrao  to whom  the Sanad  was  granted  was  the holder of  the watan.  The Sanad  of 1872  granted only  the right to hold the watan lands free from full assessment. The view taken  by the Revenue Tribunal appears to be based on a judgment 121 of the  Bombay High  Court, Ramasomappa Bhimrao Desai v. The Secretary of  State for India in Council.(1) disposing of an appeal that  arose from  a suit  instituted in  1929 by  the respondent’s father  Ramasomappa against  the  Secretary  of State  for  India  in-Council  in  1929.  According  to  the Tribunal the  Bombay High  Court had  held in that case that the grant  to the  respondent’s ancestor did not include the right to  the soil.  It may be necessary here to state a few facts upon  which Ramasomappa’s suit was instituted. Bhimrao to whom  the Sanad  was given  adopted Ramasomappa  in 1909. After  Bhimrao’s   death  in  1918.  Government  refused  to recognise  Ramasomappa’s   adoption.  He   then  applied  to Government for  the grant  of ex  post facto sanction to his adoption by  Bhimrao and, alternatively, prayed that in case the sanction  was not given, then the watan might be resumed by the  levy of  full assessment  on the lands and he should not be  evicted therefrom.  Both these  requests were turned down  and   the  Government   passed  orders   for  resuming possession of  the lands.  Ramasomappa then brought the suit against the   Secretary  of State for a declaration that the orders passed  by Government for resumption of possession of the  watan  lands  were  illegal.  The  trial  court  having dismissed the  suit Ramasomappa  came up  in appeal  to  the Bombay High  Court. The  question whether the original grant to the  respondent’s ancestor was of the soil or it was only a right  to the royal share of the revenue did not arise for consideration in  Ramasomappa v. Secretary of State (supra). The Bombay  High Court  allowed Ramasomappa’s appeal holding that the  Sanad of 1872 did not purport to be a grant of the right to occupy the soil, it had only reference to and was a grant of  the  right  to  hold  the  lands  free  from  full assessment, and  that if any of the conditions of the grant, namely the  condition of remaining faithful to Government or the condition  of paying  a  fixed  duty  was  broken,  then Government was only entitled to claim full assessment on the lands but  any right  of occupation  which the holder of the watan possessed apart from the Sanad would remain untouched. The Tribunal’s reading of the judgment in Ramasomappa’s case does not  therefore seem  to be  correct. The judgment under appeal before us points out that the decision in Ramasomappa

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

v. Secretary  of State  (supra) has  no bearing on the issue involved in the instant case.      Counsel for  the appellants also relied on the decision in 39  Bombay Law Reporter 851 in support of the appeal but, for the  reasons stated above, we do not think Ramasomappa’s case at  all helps him. The only other ground urged was that an application 122 made on  behalf of  the respondent  in 1947  (when he  was a minor) under section 10 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act (Act III  of 1874)  having been  rejected, the  respondent’s right to  a regrant  of the  watan lands  was  extinguished. Section 10 empowered the Collector to issue a certificate on the basis  of which  the respondent  could bring  an  action against the  appellants for  recovery of  possession of  the lands. The  point was  argued before the Deputy Commissioner in the  present proceedings  who held  that the rejection of the application  did not take away the right of the watandar to ask  for a  regrant of the watan lands under section 4 of the 1950  Act. From  the judgment  of the High Court it does not appear  the point  was argued  there, and  normally  the appellants should  not be  allowed to take the point in this Court. In  any case  it seems to us clear that the rejection of the application under section 10 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act,  1874 is  not a  matter relevant  to the  issue whether the respondent is entitled to a regrant of the watan lands under section 4 of the 1950 Act.      The appeals are dismissed with costs; one hearing fee. V.D.K.                                   Appeals dismissed. 123