Gupta, J. - (1.) 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 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 Paragana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 1950 Act). The assistant Commissioner's order direction 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.
(2.) The relevant facts which have been found or admitted are as follows. The lands in question are pargana watan lands. "Paragana watan" has been defined in Section 2 (e) of the 1950 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 lnam Act). Ultimately, in 1863 a settlement was reached between the British Government and Bhimrao. The terms of the settlement were 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 1874), commonly known as the Watan Act. The relevant part of Section 15 of this Act is an 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." Following the settlement a Sanad was issued by the British Government to respondent's ancestor Bhimrao in 1872. 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 set faithfully and honestly and shall go on paying to Government permanently every year the amount as mentioned in the Sanad.
(3.) The effect of commutation of service on watan property has been considered by this Court in the Collector of South Satara v. Laxman Mahadev Deshpande, (1964) 2 SCR 48. 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. Commutation of service does not, therefore, in the absence of an express agreement to that effect alter the tenure of the land held as watan. By agreement the State, for consideration, say 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 lifetime of Bhimrao and his adopted son Ramsomappa. The present respondent is Ramsomappa's son. Bhimrao died in 1918 and Ramsomappa in 1944. After Ramsomappa'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 prohibits a watandar to alienate his watan property beyond his lifetime to any person not a watandar of the same watan.;