STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MAHARAJ SAJJAN SINGHJI NAHERSINGHJI
LAWS(GJH)-1979-7-30
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on July 20,1979

STATE OF GUJARAT Appellant
VERSUS
MAHARAJ SAJJAN SINGHJI NAHERSINGHJI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.H.SHETH - (1.) The facts of the case in Special Civil Application No. 1954 of 1974 briefly stated are as under: The former princely State of Chhotaudepur granted certain rights to respondent No. 1. Under those rights respondent No. 1 was entitled to operate mines and win mineral products. They were jagir rights. On the coming into force of the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act 1953 there in after referred to as the Jagir Abolition Act for the sake of brevity all jagirs were abolished. The jagir which was granted to respondent No. 1 consisted of two villages Zer and Dadigam. The Act came into force some time in 1954. In 1968 respondent No. 1 (who will hereinafter be described as the claimant ) made an application to the Government under sec. 10 and claimed that he had a right to open new mines and win mineral products in these two villages and that those rights were not abolished under the Jagir Abolition Act. Therefore an enquiry under sec. 37 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code was made by the District Deputy Collector who by his order dated 21st December 1975 turned down the contention raised by the claimant and did not give him a declaration that he had a right to open new mines and win mineral products therefrom. The claimant appealed to the Collector against that order. The Collector dismissed the appeal. Further appeal was carried by the claimant to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the former princely State of Chhotaudepur had granted to the claimant a proprietary jagir therefore all rights in respect of mines and minerals which subsisted on the appointed date were saved. Therefore the Tribunal set aside the orders made by the subordinate forums and gave a declaration. It is that order which is challenged by the State of Gujarat in this petition.
(2.) In Special Civil Application No. 1988 of 1974 the facts of the case are similar. Respondent No. 1 (who will hereinafter be referred to as the claimant) is the lessee in respect of 244 Acres and 15 Gunthas of land situated in village Baletia which was a Jat Inam land of the Janis of Kalol. The rights of the Inamdar were abolished under the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act. However the claimant claimed that leasehold rights granted to him in respect of mines and mineral products by the Inamdar were saved under sec. 9 of the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act 1952 The claimant therefore sought a declaration to the aforesaid effect. The Assistant Collector of Kalol negatived the Contention raised by the claimant. In appeal the Collector of Panchmahals confirmed the order made by the Assistant Collector. On further appeal to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal the orders made by the subordinate forums were set aside and it was declared that survey No. 35 admeasuring 244 acres and 20 gunthas of village Baletia had not vested in the State. That order is challenged by the State of Gujarat in this petition.
(3.) The only question which arises for our consideration in both these petitions relates to the interpretation of sec. 10 of the Jagir Abolition hot and sec. 9 of the Personal Inams Abolition Act. Sec. 10 of the Jagir Abolition Act provides as follows: "Nothing in this Act or any other law for the time being in force shall be deemed to affect the rights of any jagirdar subsisting on the appointed date to mines or mineral products in a jagir village granted or recognised under any contract grant or law for the time being in force or by custom or usage." Sec. 9 of the Personal Inams Abolition Act 1952 provides as follows: "Nothing in this Act or any other law for the time being in force shall be deemed to affect the rights of any Inamdar subsisting on the appointed date to mines or mineral products in an inam village or inam land granted or recognized under any contract grant or law for the time being in force or a decree of a Court." On comparative analysis of these two sections it appears to us that except for a few verbal changes they are in pari materia.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.