- (1.) This appeal raises questions of interpretation of certain provisions of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act 1951 (Act No. XXV of 1951). On June 1, 1947 Narendrasinghji the then ruler of the Virpur State granted certain agricultural lands situate within the State to the appellant, his paternal uncle. On February 11, 1948 Narendra-Singhji and the appellant effected an exchange under which the appellant returned the lands at Matiya and Guda to Narendrasinghji and in lieu thereof was granted certain lands in Kharedi. The lands in Kharedi are the subject matter of dispute in this litigation. On February 17, 1948 the grant was recorded in the "Hak Patrak" of the Virpur State. On March 8, 1948 the administration of the Virpur State was assumed by the United State of Saurashtra. The grant to the appellant was questioned by the Saurashtra Government. Thereafter at a conference called the Jamnagar Conference, it was arranged between Narendrasinghji and the Government of India that the lands in Kharedi should be regarded as lawfully granted to the appellant subject to the condition that the grantee would not evict the cultivators from the land. The arrangement was set out in a letter dated November 2, 1949 from the officer on special duty (Integration) Political Department, to the Secretary, Revenue Department, United State of Saurashtra. The letter stated: "According to the Jamnagar Conference decision as this grant was an exchange, it was acceptable after verification regarding reasonableness of the exchange. It having been decided on enquiry that the exchange was reasonable, the grant is accepted subject however to the liability of the grantee (a) to pay 12 1/2 per cent as assessment (b) to see that no cultivation shall be evicted from the land...The grantee K. S. Digvijaysinghji may kindly be informed of this assessment charge and the other contents of this letter and may be put in possession of the land and allowed to be retained by him subject to the liabilities specified in this letter." Though the appellant was not a party to the arrangement, he was aware of and accepted the arrangement and the conditions upon which is grant was confirmed by the Government of India. Had he not accepted those conditions, it was likely that the government would have resumed the grant under the Saurashtra Land Resumption Ordinance No. 84 of 1949 which came into force on January 13,1950. The Saurashtra Land Reforms Act came into force on September 1, 1951. On January 29, 1954 the Government of Saurashtra issued a notification under Sections 15(2) (2 (15) ). of the Act declaring the appellant to be a Girasdar for purposes of the Act subject to the provisions of Section 18 thereof. By a notification dated July 20, 1954 the Saurashtra Government clarified the earlier notification stating that the appellant was a Girasdar subject to the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, i. e., the condition imposed by the government at the time of his recognition that he cannot evict the tenants. In the meantime the appellant had applied to the Mamlatdar, Kalawad, for an order of allotment of land for personal cultivation under S. 18 (19 ) of the Act. The application was resisted by the tenants who are the respondents in this appeal. The tenants claimed that they had "chav" rights and that in any event the appellant was not entitled to eject them. The Mamlatdar allowed the application and allotted to the appellant lands out of the holding of four tenants. An appeal from his order was dismissed by the Deputy Collector, Eastern Division, Halar. On a revision application filed by the tenants the Bombay Revenue Tribunal set aside these orders and dismissed the application filed under Section 19. All the tribunals concurrently found that the tenants did not hold "Chav" rights. The Mamlatdar allowed the application under Section 19 on the ground that the conditions imposed upon the appellant before the passing of the Act did not debar him from taking the benefits under the Act. The Deputy Collector affirmed this order on the ground that by obtaining the order of allotment of lands for personal cultivation the appellant was not seeking to evict tenants by exercising his rights as a landlord. The Tribunal disagreed with the views of the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector and observed that as the appellant was aware of and accepted the conditions imposed by the arrangement incorporated in the letter dated November 2, 1949, he was bound by them and his rights in the land were limited by the condition that he could not evict the tenants. The Tribunal held that the tenants were entitled to take advantage of the conditions under Section 18 of the Act and the application under Section 19 was therefore not maintable.
(2.) The appellant then applied to the High Court of Bombay at Rajkot under Art. 227 of the Constitution challenging the correctness of the order of the Revenue Tribunal. The High Court dismissed the application. It held that the conditions incorporated in the letter of November 2, 1949 having been accepted by the appellant enured for the benefit of the tenants under Section 18 of the Act. It also held that the rights of the appellant as Girasdar were restricted by the notification under Section 2 (15) of the Act declaring him to be a "Girasdar" and the appellant was bound by those restrictions. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant under a certificate granted by the High Court.
(3.) It is not disputed that the Government of India had the power to impose upon the appellant the conditions incorporated in the letter dated November 2, 1949 and that the appellant is bound by them. The Government could refuse to recognise the grant made to the appellant by the ruler of the Virpur State and to annul the grant. Had the Government annulled the grant, the annulment would have been an act of State and could not be questioned before the municipal tribunals (see State of Saurashtra v. Jamadar Mohammad Abdulla, (1962) 3 SCR 970 = (AIR 1962 SC 445) ). Instead of annulling the grant the Government elected to confirm it subject to the conditions incorporated in the letter dated November 2, 1949. The appellant accepted the grant subject to those conditions and is bound by them.;