Madon, J. - (1.) The Appellant was the holder of large plots of land. By his order dated March 21, 1964, the Collector, Kaira District, directed that plots of land admeasuring 6 acres and 28 gunthas were to be considered as Service Inam land Class vi(a) assigned for remuneration in respect of Patel's service of village Malarpura, Taluka Matar, and the remaining plots of lands were to be resumed and entered in the name of the Government of Gujarat under Rule 4, of the Resumption Rules, 1908, and steps for their disposal should be taken separately by the competent authority. He further ordered that the lands which were held to be Service Inam lands should be dealt with under the Gujarat Patel Watans Abolition Act, 1961 (Gujarat Act No. XLVIII of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as "the Abolition Act"), with effect from April 1, 1963. Against the said order of the Collector, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Revenue, Ahmedabad Division, but as the office of the Commissioner was abolished, the said appeal was transferred to and heard by the Special Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Revenue and Agricultural Department, Ahmedabad, who dismissed it by his order dated August 4, 1964. Thereupon the Appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the Gujarat High Court being Special Civil Application No. 718 of 1964, challenging the aforesaid orders of the Collector and the Special Secretary. The said writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court by its judgment and order dated October 4, 1969. On an application made by the Appellant the High Court granted a certificate of appeal under sub-clause (b) of Clause (1) of Article 133 of the Constitution, prior to the amendment of the said clause by the Constitution (Thirtieth Amendment) Act, 1972, certifying that the judgment and final order of the High Court involved directly or indirectly a claim or question respecting property of the value of not less than twenty thousand rupees.
(2.) In order to appreciate the points argued at the hearing of this Appeal, it is necessary to set out the facts which led to the passing of the impugned order of the Collector dated March 21. 1964. Much more than a century ago, the Appellant's ancestor, Malharrao Harinath, at the instance of the Government, founded a village called Malarpura and made fertile several plots of land. The Government, therefore, granted to the said Malharrao lands bearing eighteen different survey numbers approximately admeasuring 74 acres and 10 gunthas of which the land revenue assessment was Rs. 557. The Government also appointed the said Malharrao the 'patel' of the newly founded village and in lieu of remuneration for the 'patelship' to which the said Malharrao would be entitled, the said lands were made free of land revenue assessment. In accordance with the terms of the Government Resolution No. 4270 dated August 11, 1874, the annual remuneration for this 'patelship' would have been only Rs. 67 but in the case of the said Malharrao the entire land revenue assessment was treated as the annual remuneration of Malharrao's 'patelship' with the result that the said Malharrao annually received in the shape of non-payment of land revenue assessment Rs. 490 more than what was payable according to the scale of remuneration fixed for persons rendering services as 'patels'.
(3.) In or about 1901 certain lands admeasuring 31 acres and 18 gunthas were taken away by the Government from the lands granted to the said Malharrao, without paying any, compensation, for the purpose of improving and enlarging the irrigation tank in Village Goblaj. Ultimately, it was resolved that the Commissioner (N. D.) should be requested to arrange a reasonable settlement for the transfer of the said lands to the Government on terms which the 'patel' was willing to accept and to report to the Government the amount of such compensation. Thereupon, proceedings were commenced under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of the said lands. Against the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer a reference was filed which was heard and decided by the Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad, who directed the total amount awarded as compensation to be invested in the manner provided in Section 32 of the Land Acquisition Act. Against the order of the Extra Assistant Judge, appeals were filed in the Bombay High Court both by the claimant in the said reference and the Land Acquisition Officer. The High Court confirmed the order of the Extra Assistant Judge with a slight modification. The compensation was, however, not paid in cash but the Government granted to the 'patel' certain. lands in lieu of such compensation.;