1. Challenge to the constitutionality of the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1953, concerning the extinguishment of personal inams and the imposition of full land revenue. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
1960 Supreme(SC) 236
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).
Important Points
The court held that "inam" falls within the definition of "estate" under Article 31-A of the Constitution, and rights to land revenue privileges are "rights in an estate," protecting the abolishing Act from challenges regarding compensation or fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 31.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Land Reforms
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 31-A - Article 31 - State Act for Abolition of Personal Inams - Sections 4, 5, 7, 10, and 17 - Definition of 'estate' and 'rights' - Extinguishment of rights to retain part of land revenue - Whether such rights constitute an 'estate' or 'rights in an estate' - Protection under Article 31-A - Absence of compensation for loss of revenue advantage - Validity of the Act. (Paras 6, 7, 8)
(B) Article 31-A(2)(a) and (b) - The expression 'estate' specifically includes 'inam'. Rights in relation to an estate include any rights or privileges in respect of land revenue. The right of a holder to appropriate the difference between full assessment and quit-rent is a right in an estate or a privilege in respect of land revenue, thus falling within the protective ambit of Article 31-A. (Para 7)
(C) Article 31 - Where a law is protected by Article 31-A, it cannot be deemed void on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away rights conferred by Article 14, 19, or 31. Consequently, the absence of compensation for the extinction of certain rights in an estate does not render the Act ultra vires. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
Appellants held personal inams under legislation from 1863, allowing them to pay only a portion of the land revenue. A subsequent Act extinguished these personal inams and made the lands liable for full land revenue. The appellants challenged the Act on the grounds that the property was not an "estate" and that no compensation was provided for the loss of the revenue advantage.
Findings of Court:
The court found that "inam" is explicitly included in the definition of "estate" under the Constitution. The right to retain a portion of the land revenue is a right or privilege in respect of land revenue, which is a right in an estate. Therefore, the Act is protected by Article 31-A.
Issues: Whether the right to appropriate the difference between full assessment and quit-rent constitutes an "estate" or "right in an estate" under Article 31-A, and whether the Act is ultra vires for failing to provide compensation under Article 31.
Ratio Decidendi: Since the definition of "estate" under Article 31-A(2)(a) includes "inam" and the definition of "rights" under Article 31-A(2)(b) includes privileges in respect of land revenue, the Act's extinguishment of such rights is protected from challenges under Articles 14, 19, and 31. The lack of compensation for the loss of revenue advantage is therefore legally permissible.
Result: Appeals dismissed with costs.
(B) Article 31-A(2)(a) and (b) - The expression 'estate' specifically includes 'inam'. Rights in relation to an estate include any rights or privileges in respect of land revenue. The right of a holder to appropriate the difference between full assessment and quit-rent is a right in an estate or a privilege in respect of land revenue, thus falling within the protective ambit of Article 31-A. (Para 7)
(C) Article 31 - Where a law is protected by Article 31-A, it cannot be deemed void on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away rights conferred by Article 14, 19, or 31. Consequently, the absence of compensation for the extinction of certain rights in an estate does not render the Act ultra vires. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
Appellants held personal inams under legislation from 1863, allowing them to pay only a portion of the land revenue. A subsequent Act extinguished these personal inams and made the lands liable for full land revenue. The appellants challenged the Act on the grounds that the property was not an "estate" and that no compensation was provided for the loss of the revenue advantage.
Findings of Court:
The court found that "inam" is explicitly included in the definition of "estate" under the Constitution. The right to retain a portion of the land revenue is a right or privilege in respect of land revenue, which is a right in an estate. Therefore, the Act is protected by Article 31-A.
Issues: Whether the right to appropriate the difference between full assessment and quit-rent constitutes an "estate" or "right in an estate" under Article 31-A, and whether the Act is ultra vires for failing to provide compensation under Article 31.
Ratio Decidendi: Since the definition of "estate" under Article 31-A(2)(a) includes "inam" and the definition of "rights" under Article 31-A(2)(b) includes privileges in respect of land revenue, the Act's extinguishment of such rights is protected from challenges under Articles 14, 19, and 31. The lack of compensation for the loss of revenue advantage is therefore legally permissible.
Result: Appeals dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
E.UDAYARATHNAM, H.N.SANYAL, K.L.Hathi, N.P.NATHVANI, PURSHOTTAM TRIKAMDAS, R.H.Dhebar, S.S.SHUKLA, V.M.LIMAYA
E.UDAYARATHNAM, H.N.SANYAL, K.L.Hathi, N.P.NATHVANI, PURSHOTTAM TRIKAMDAS, R.H.Dhebar, S.S.SHUKLA, V.M.LIMAYA
Table of Contents
2. Whether the right to retain land revenue difference constitutes an estate under Article 31-A and whether the lack of compensation violates Article 31. (Para 1 , 6 , 8 )
3. Inams are estates under Article 31-A, and the right to retain revenue is a right or privilege in respect of land revenue protected by the Article. (Para 7 )
4. Laws providing for the acquisition of estates or extinguishment of rights therein, including inams and land revenue privileges, are protected under Article 31-A of the Constitution. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. Appeals dismissed with costs. (Para 9 )
6. Does the term estate under Article 31-A of the Constitution include personal inams?
Yes, Article 31-A(2)(a) specifically includes inam within the definition of estate, making laws dealing with inams protected from challenges under Articles 14, 19, or 31. (Para 7 )
7. Is the right to retain a portion of land revenue considered a right in an estate?
Yes, such a right is either a right in an estate because it arises from holding an inam-estate, or it is a right or privilege in respect of land revenue under Article 31-A(2)(b). (Para 7 )
8. Can a law abolishing inam rights be challenged under Article 31 for failing to provide compensation?
No, because Article 31-A saves laws providing for the acquisition of estates or the extinguishment of rights therein from any attack under Article 31. (Para 7 , 8 )
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
