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

PETITIONER: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: NARAYAN VYANKATESH DESHPANDE

DATE OF JUDGMENT31/03/1976

BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. GUPTA, A.C. FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA

CITATION:  1976 AIR 1204            1976 SCR  (3) 980  1976 SCC  (3) 404

ACT:      Bombay Paragana  and Kulkarni  Watans (Abolition)  Ac), 1950-Compensation payable  on resumption  of land  under  s. 6(21-Whether the  "watan" was  in respect of the soil or the watan was of land revenue Construction of "Sanad" granted by the British  Government in  terms "The  Exemption From  Land Revenue (No. 1) Bombay Act 2 of 1863.

HEADNOTE:      The respondent  by virtue  of the  sanad granted to his ancestors by  the British Government, claimed, in respect of certain lands  situated in village Shiramba Taluka Koregaon, District North  Satara, compensation  under s.  6(2) of  the Bombay Paragana  and Kulkarni  Watans (Abolition) Act. 1950, for the  resumption of  the lands by the appellant. The suit claim of  Rs. 15,074-4-0 being "a sum equal to ten times the amount of such land revenue" was decreed by the trial court. On appeal  by the  State, the  High Court affirmed the same. after construing the sanad granted by the British Government in favour  of the  respondents’ ancestors and other relevant records, as  it was  a watan  of land  revenue  and  not  in respect of the soil.      Dismissing the  State’s appeal by special leave to this Court, ^      HELD: (1)  The High Court was right in holding that the grant in  favour of  the ancestors  of the  respondent was a grant of  land revenue  only and not a grant of the soil and since the  watan held  by the  respondent at the date of the coming into force of the Act was a watan of land revenue the respondent was  entitled to  compensation in  the sum of Rs. 15,074-4-0 under s. 6(2) of the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watan (Abolition) Act, 1950. [982B-C]      (2) The  sanad undoubtedly  used the  words "lands"  to describe the  subject matter  of the  grant,  but  the  word "land" is  defined in  Bombay Act  II of 1863 [The Exemption From Land  Revenue (No.  1 )  Act 1863], to include share of land  revenue   and  this   meaning  would   apply  in   the construction of the word "land" in the sanad since the sanad was apparently  granted pursuant  to the  enquiry made under Bombay Act II of 1863. The description of the subject matter

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

would not,  therefore, necessarily  indicate that  it was  a grant of  the soil. In fact, this description standing alone would rather  indicate that  it was  a grant of land revenue only,  since   grant  of   the  soil   would  ordinarily  be accompanied by  words such  as ’Darobast’  or ’Jal’, ’Taru’, ’Truna’, ’Kastha’ and ’Pashan’. [981F-H]      [Their  lordships  deprecated  the  litigious  approach adopted  by   the  State   Government  and  observed  "State Governments which  have public  accountability in respect of their actions  should not  lightly rush  to  this  Court  to challenge a  judgment of the High Court which is plainly and manifestly  correct   and  drag   the  opposite   party   in unnecessary expense.]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1381 of 1968.      (Appeal by  Special Leave  from the Judgment and Decree dated the 22-2-1967 of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No. 12/1960).      M. N.  Phadke, M.  N. Shroff  and S.  P. Nayar, for the appellant.      V. S. Desai and D. Goburdhan, for the respondent. 981      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      BHAGWATI, J.-This  appeal by  special  leave  raises  a short  question   as  to  whether  the  Watan  held  by  the respondent at  the date  of coming  into force of the Bombay Paragana and  Kulkarni Watans  (Abolition) Act,  1950 was  a Watan of  the soil,  or a  Watan of  land revenue  only,  in respect of certain lands situate in village shirambe, Taluka Koregaon, District  North  Statara.  If  the  Watan  was  in respect of the soil, the respondent would not be entitled to any compensation  for the resumption of the Watan lands, but if it was a Watan of land revenue only, the respondent would have a  claim for  compensation for  a "a  sum equal  to ten times the  amount of such land revenue" under s. 6(2) of the Act. The  respondent claimed  that the  Watan  was  of  land revenue only  and not  of the  soil and  he was,  therefore, entitled to  compensation as  provided in s. 6(2) of the Act and filed  a suit  for recovery  of Rs. 15,074-4-0 by way of compensation against  the State  of Maharashtra in the Court of Civil  Judge, Senior  Division,  Satara.  The  claim  was decreed by  the learned  Civil Judge, Senior Division and on appeal by  the State  of Maharashtra the High Court affirmed the view  taken by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division. The High  Court construed  the Sanad  granted by the British government in  favour of  the ancestors of the respondent in the light  of the surrounding circumstances and particularly the  entries   contemporaneously  made   in  the  alienation register and  came to the conclusion that the grant embodied in the  Sanad was  not a  grant of the soil but was merely a grant of  land revenue  and the  respondent was,  therefore, entitled to  claim compensation  the basis  laid down  in s. 6(2) of the Act. The State of Maharashtra being aggrieved by the  decree  passed  by  the  learned  Civil  Judge,  Senior Division and  affirmed  by  the  High  Court  preferred  the present appeal with special leave obtained from this Court.      We have carefully gone through the judgment of the High Court and we find ourselves completely in agreement with the conclusion reached  there. The judgment of the High Court is a well  reasoned judgment  and the learned counsel appearing on behalf  of the  State of Maharashtra has not been able to

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

show any  infirmity in  it. The  opening part  of the  Sanad clearly shows  that it  was issued in recognition of a grant which was  already made  in favour  of the  ancestors of the respondent. The  Sanad undoubtedly  used the word ’lands’ to describe the  subject-matter of  the  grant,  but  the  word ’land’ is  defined in  Bombay Act 2 of 1863 to include share of land  revenue  and  this  meaning  should  apply  in  the construction of  the word  ’land’ in  the Sanad,  since  the Sanad was  apparently granted  pursuant to  the enquiry made under Bombay  Act 2  of 1863. The description of the subject matter of  the grant  as ’lands’  in the  Sanad  would  not, therefore, necessarily  indicate that  it was a grant of the soil. In  fact, this description standing alone would rather indicate that  it was  a grant  of land  revenue only, since grant of  the soil  would ordinarily be accompanied by words such as  ’Darobast’ or  ’Jal’, ’Taru’, ’Truna’, ’Kastha’ and ’Pashan.’ Moreover,  the entries  contemporaneously made  in the alienation  register also showed that the grant referred to in  the Sanad  was a grant of land revenue only and not a grant of the soil. The High 982 Court has  discussed these  entries and  it is not necessary for us  to reiterate  what has been so ably said by the High Court. The  earlier documents  relied upon by the respondent have also  been referred  to by  the  High  Court  and  they clearly go  to show  that the  grant was of land revenue and not of  the soil.  This position was in fact accepted by the Revenue officers all throughout and that is evident from the order of  the District  Deputy Collector,  Satara dated 19th August, 1937  (Ex. 28) and the decision dated 28th February, 1951 (Ex.  331) given  by  the  Collector  of  North  Satara allowing  an   appeal  filed  by  the  respondent.  We  are, therefore, of  the view  that the  High Court  was right  in holding that  the grant  in favour  of the  ancestors of the respondent was  a grant of land revenue only and not a grant of the  soil and  since the  Watan held by the respondent at the date  of the coming into force of the Act was a Watan of land revenue, the respondent was entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 15,074-4-0 under s. 6(2) of the Act.      It is  indeed difficult  to understand  as to  why  the State of  Maharashtra  should  have  preferred  the  present appeal at  all. The  judgment of  the High  Court  was  pre- eminently a correct judgment based on a careful appreciation of the  evidence on  record and  it did no more than adopt a construction of the grant which had throughout been accepted as the correct construction by the Revenue officers over the last 75  years. The  learned counsel  appearing on behalf of the State  of Maharashtra  in fact  found it  impossible  to assail the reasoning of the judgment. It is evident that the appeal was  filed by the State of Maharashtra without giving much thought  to the  question and caring to enquire whether the judgment  of the  High Court  suffered from  any  errors requiring to  be corrected  by a  superior court.  We do not think it  is right  that State  Governments  should  lightly prefer an  appeal in  this Court against a decision given by the  High  Court  unless  they  are  satisfied,  on  careful consideration and  proper scrutiny,  that  the  decision  is erroneous and  public interest  requires that  it should  be brought before  a superior  court for  being corrected.  The State Governments  should not adopt a litigious approach and waste public  revenues on  fruitless and  futile  litigation where there - are no chances of success. It is unfortunately a fact  that it  costs quite a large sum of money to come to this  Court  and  this  Court  has  become  untouchable  and unapproachable by  many litigants  who can  not  afford  the

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

large expense  involved in  fighting a  litigation  in  this Court. It  is, therefore,  all the more necessary that State Governments, which  have public accountability in respect of their actions,  should not  lightly rush  to this  Court  to challenge a  judgment of the High Court which is plainly and manifestly  correct   and  drag   the  opposite   party   in unnecessary expense,  part of which would, in any event, not be compensated  by award  of cost.  The present appeal is an instance of  the kind  of unnecessary  and futile litigation which the State Governments can and should avoid.      We accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs. S.R. Appeal dismissed. 983