SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
3rd October, 1960.
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., J.L. KAPUR, P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAO AND K.N. WANCHOO, JJ.
Gangadharrao Narayanrao Mujumdar (In C. A. No. 155 of 56), Trimbak Laxman Dabir (In C. A. No. 156 of 56), Laxman Harishastri Garge (in C. A. No. 157 of 56). Babubhai Gulabbhai Nagarsheth (in C. A. No. 158 of 56), Sardar Mansinhji Bhasaheb (in C. A. No.159 of 56) and Shri Laxminarayan Devasthan (in C. A. No. 160 of 56), Appellants
Versus
State of Bombay and another (In all the Appeals). Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 155 to 160 of 1956.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. Purshottam Trikamdas, Senior Advocate, (Mr. V. M. Limaye, Mrs. E. Udayartnam and Mr. S. S. Shukla, Advocates, with him), for Appellants (In all the Appeals); Mr. H. N. Sanyal, Addl. Solicitor-General of India, (M/s. N. P. Nathwani, K. L. Hathi and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates, with him), for Respondents (In all the Appeals).
Judgment
WANCHOO, J. : These six appeals on a certificate granted by the Bombay High Court raise a common question as to the constitutionality of the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, No XLII of 1953, (hereinafter called the Act) and will be disposed of by this judgment. The appellants hold personal inams which are covered by Bombay Acts Nos. II and VII of 1863. The Act was attacked on a number of grounds in the High Court of which only two have been urged before us, namely, (i) that the property which has been dealt with under the Act is not an estate and (ii) that no compensation has been provided in the Act for taking away the property of the appellants. The writ petitions were opposed by the State of Bombay and the main contention on its behalf was that the Act was protected under Art. 31-A of the Constitution.
2. Before we deal with the two points raised before us, we should like briefly to refer to the rights which holders of personal inams had by virtue of Bombay Acts Nos. II and VII of 1863. Act No II extended to certain parts of the Presidency of Bombay and dealt with holders of lands in those parts who were holding lands wholly or partially exempt from the payment of government land-revenue. The Act provided for the cases of holders of such lands whose title to exemption had not till then been formally adjudicated. It laid down that if such holders of lands consented to submit to the terms and conditions prescribed in the Act in preference to being obliged to prove their title to the exemption enjoyed by them, the Provincial Government would be prepared to finally authorise and guarantee the continuance, in perpetuity, of the said land to the said holders, their heirs and assigns upon the said terms and subject to the said conditions. The main provision of the Act in this respect was that such holders or land would be entitled to keep their lands in perpetuity subject to payment of (i) a fixed annual payment as nazrana in commutation of all claims of the Crown in respect of succession and transfer which shall be calculated at the rate of one anna for each rupee of assessment and (ii) a quit-rent equal to one-further of the assessment. There were other provisions in the Act for those cases where the holders of such land were not prepared to abide by the conditions of the Act and wanted their claims to be adjudicated; but we are not concerned with those provisions for present purposes. Thus the main right which the holders of lands got by Act II was that they held their lands on payment of one-forth of the assessment instead of full assessment plus further one-sixteenth of the assessment; thus they paid in all five annas in the rupee of the full assessment and retained eleven annas in the rupee for themselves.
3. Act No. VII dealt with similar holders of lands in the remaining parts of the Presidency of Bombay, and made similar provisions with this difference that such holders of lands were to pay two annas for each rupee of the assessment as quit-rent under S. 6. Thus those who came under Act VII paid only two annas in the rupee of the assessment and retained fourteen annas in the rupee for themselves.
4. We now turn to the provisions of the Act. By S. 2 (c) "inamdar" is defined as a holder of personal inam and includes any person lawfully holding under or through him. Section 2(d) defines an "inam village" or "inam land" while S. 2(e) defines "personal inam". Section 3 provides that the Act will not apply to certain inams including devasthan inams or inam held by religious or charitable institutions. The Explanation to the section lays down that by the term "inams held by religious or charitable institutions" will be meant devasthan or dharmadaya inams granted or recognized by the ruling authority for the time being for a religious or charitable institution and entered as such in the alienation register kept under S. 53 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter called the Code), or in the record kept under th
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.