STATE OF BOMBAY Vs. CHHAGANLAL GANGARAM LAVAR
LAWS(BOM)-1954-7-6
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on July 15,1954

STATE OF BOMBAY Appellant
VERSUS
CHHAGANLAL GANGARAM LAVAR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

VIRUPAXSHAPA HUNDEKAR V. SECY. OF STATE [REFERRED TO]
DATTATRAYA JAIRAM V. SECY. OF STATE [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF BOMBAY V. MATHURDAS LALJIBHAI [REFERRED TO]
SAMBHAJI BALOJI SOLANKAR VS. MAMLATDAR OF BARAMATI [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF THE PROVINCE OF BOMBAY VS. AHMEDABAD SARANGPUR MILLS CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF THE PROVINCE OF BOMBAY VS. HORMUSJI MANEKJI [REFERRED TO]
ANANT KRISHNAJI NULKAR VS. SECYOF STATE [REFERRED TO]
SECY OF STATE VS. ANANT KRISHNAJI NULKAR [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

PARCY CHAUHAN VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-1978-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
SRI DURGA THAKURANI BIJE NIJIGARH VS. CHINTAMONI SWAIN [LAWS(ORI)-1982-3-13] [REFERRED TO]
PRASANT GAUR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1988-5-28] [REFERRED TO]
GOSWAMI KALYANRAIJI GOVINDRAIJI VS. GOSWAMI VALLABHRAIJI GOVINDRAIJI [LAWS(GJH)-2002-10-28] [REFERRED TO]
SEWANATH (MASTER) VS. FAQIR CHAND [LAWS(J&K)-1964-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
HEM RAJ AND OTHERS VS. MEHTAB SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-1983-5-94] [REFERRED TO]
SOJ VS. STATE [LAWS(KER)-2010-12-512] [REFERRED TO]
MOHMAD AYUB ALIAS BABU SAGIRBHAI SHAIKH VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AHMEDABAD [LAWS(GJH)-1993-7-56] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRAN / MURUKAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2022-2-10] [REFERRED TO]
RATANLAL NAHATA AND VS. NANDITA BOSE [LAWS(CAL)-1998-6-7] [REFERRED TO]
PANDURANG KALU PATIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2002-1-124] [REFERRED 9.]
AJAYAN ALIAS BABY VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2010-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
KULDEEP SINGH VS. HARBANS LAL [LAWS(HPH)-2023-9-62] [REFERRED TO]
MOTIRAM VS. PANNALAL [LAWS(MPH)-2001-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
MOTIRAM VS. PANNALAL [LAWS(MPH)-2001-9-23] [REFERRED TO]
PAYGONDA SURVGONDA PATIL VS. JINGONDA SURGONDA PATIL [LAWS(BOM)-1967-2-9] [REFERRED TO]
SINGHARA SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1961-5-26] [REFERRED TO]
DHANI RAM SHAH VS. BHAG DEI [LAWS(J&K)-1969-9-1] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Chagla, C.J. - (1.)Mr. Justice Gajendragadkar and Mr. Justice Vyas, while hearing a second appeal, have referred a certain question to this Pull Bench and the question conies to be referred under the following circumstances.
(2.)It appears that Government let out six lauds bearing various survey numbers in the village of Mukharaba to the plaintiff in the suit from which the second appeal arises. The lease was a temporary lease for three years and it was for the period 1940 to 1943. On 29-5-1943, the plaintiff applied to the Collector to grant him a permanent occupancy lease, and on 15-6-1943, the District Deputy Collector passed an order making a grant of a lease on occupancy tenure with certain conditions attached to that case, and the conditions were that it was to be on the old impartible tenure on the term of raising foodgrains till the completion of the war and on certain other conditions with which we are not concerned. On 21-7-1943, the Mamlatdar gave a written permission to the plaintiff to occupy these lands and on 21-8-1943, the plaintiff executed a kabulayat in accordance with the rules and the form Under the Act. On 1-4-1947, the Collector set aside the order passed by the District Deputy Collector on 15-6-1943, and the Government, exercising its revisional powers, set aside the order of the Collector, but modified the order of the District Deputy Collector by directing that the plaintiff should hold the lands, not on the old, but the new tenure, the effect being that the lands which were alienable and transferable became unalienable without the previous sanction of Government. On 7-2-1949 the plaintiff filed a suit challenging the order passed by Government on 8-7-1948, as ultra, vires', null and void. The trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit. In appeal, the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree of the trial Court, and the State of Bombay then came to this Court in second appeal and in the second appeal the learned Judges have raised the following question for consideration of the Full Bench: "Where a grant has been made under Section 62, Land Revenue Code and a kabulayat has been taken in pursuance of the said grant under Rule 37, Land Revenue Rules, can the said grant and the kabulayat be modified or cancelled under Section 211, Land Revenue Code?"
(3.)In order to understand and appreciate this question and to come to a conclusion as to what the proper answer to the question should be, it Is necessary to look at the relevant provisions of the Land Revenue Code. Section 37 of the Code provides that all lands wherever situated, which are not the property of individuals or of aggregates of persons legally capable of holding property vest in Government and are the property of Government, and that it shall be lawful for the Collector, subject to the orders of the Commissioner, to dispose of them in such manner as he may deem fit, or as may be authorised by genera rules sanctioned by the Government. Section 60 provides that any person desirou of taking up unoccupied land which has not been alienated must, previously to entering upon occupation, obtain the permission in writing -of the Mamlatdar, and this was the permission that was granted by the Mamlatdar on 21-7-1943. Section 62 provides that it shall be lawful for the Collector subject to such rules as may from time to time be made by the State Government in this behalf, to require the payment of a price for unalienated land or to sell the same by auction, and to annex such conditions to the grant as he may deem fit, before permission to occupy is given under Section 60. Therefore, it is open to the Collector to fix the price and also to annex such conditions as he thinks proper to the grant and it was in pursuance of this power that the Collector attached certain conditions to the grant of the lands to the plaintiff by his order dated 15-6-1943. Then Section 68 provides that the rights of the occupant are conditional: either his tenure is of a limited period or, if the period is unlimited, the tenure is perpetual, but on condition that he pays land revenue and fulfils the other terms lawfully annexed to his tenure. There is a proviso to this Section 68, which is really enacted for greater caution and contains the same provision of law as is already to be found in Section 62, and that proviso is that it will not be unlawful for the Collector to grant permission to occupy unalienated land to any person for such period and on such conditions as he may prescribe, and that the occupancy shall only be held for the period and subject to the conditions prescribed by the Collector. Section 203 provides for appeals to higher revenue authorities from decisions of the subordinate revenue authorities, & under Section 211 the power of revision is conferred upon the State Government and higher revenue officers and the revisional power is conferred for the satisfaction of the authorities concerned as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed and as to the regularity of the proceedings of a revenue Officer. Paragraph 3 of Section 211 provides that in the exercise of the revisional power the authority can modify, annul or reverse the order or proceedings and may pass such order thereon as the authority deems fit.


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