Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
13th December, 1962
S.J. IMAM, K. SUBBA RAO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
Laxman Purshottam Pimputkar, Appellant
Versus
The State of Bombay and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 206 of 1960. 437
Advocates Appeared
Mr. P. K. Chakravarti Advocate, for Mr. B. C. Misra, Advocate, for Appellant; Mr. N. S. Bindra, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. S. B. Jathar, Advocate and Mr. P. D. Menon, Advocate for Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Advocate, with him), for Respondent No. 1; M/s. K. V. Joshi and Ganpat Rai, Advocates, for Respondents Nos. 2 to 4.
Watan Act - Collector's Order - Quasi-Judicial - Revision by Government - Jurisdiction - Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876, S. 4(a).
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a Patilki Watan holder, sought to set aside Government orders modifying an earlier order restoring possession of Watan lands to him. The Government contended that the suit was barred by the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876, S. 4(a), and that the Collector's order under the Watan Act was administrative, not quasi-judicial.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Collector's order under the Watan Act was quasi-judicial, not administrative, and that the Government's subsequent order modifying it was ultra vires and beyond its jurisdiction. The Court also held that the suit was not barred by the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876, S. 4(a), as no relief was sought against the Government.
Issues: 1. Whether the Collector's order under the Watan Act was administrative or quasi-judicial. 2. Whether the Government had jurisdiction to revise the Collector's order. 3. Whether the suit was barred by the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876, S. 4(a).
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Collector's order under the Watan Act was quasi-judicial, not administrative, because it involved a lis between the Watandar and the alienee of the Watan land, and the Collector had to exercise discretion in making the order. 2. The Government did not have jurisdiction to revise the Collector's order because the order was quasi-judicial, not administrative, and there was no provision in the Watan Act empowering the Government to review the order. 3. The suit was not barred by the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876, S. 4(a), because no relief was sought against the Government.
Final Decision: The Court reversed the decision of the High Court and restored the decision of the trial court, which had set aside the Government's orders modifying the Collector's order.
Judgment
MUDHOLKAR, J. : This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Bombay affirming the decree of the District Judge, Thana, setting aside the decree in favour of plaintiff-appellant.
2. The relevant facts which are no longer in dispute are these : The plaintiff s family are grantees of the Patilki Watan of some villages in Umbergaon taluka of the Thana District of Maharashtra, including the village of Solsumbha, Maroli and Vavji. Defendants 2 to 4 also belong to the family of the plaintiff. The plaintiff represents the senior most branch of the family while the defendants 2 to 4 represent other branches. The dispute with which we are concerned in this appeal relates to the Patilki of Solsumbha. Under the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 (Bombay Act No. III of 1874) the person who actually perform the duty of a hereditary office for the time being is called an Officiator. It is common ground that the Officiator had been selected from the branch of the plaintiff from the year 1870 in which year the propositus Krishna Rao Pimputkar died. After his death he was succeeded by his eldest son Vasudev upon whose death in 1893 his eldest son Sadashiv was the Officiator. Sadashiv died in 1901 and was succeeded by Purshottam, who was Officiator till the year 1921 when, because of the disqualification incurred by him, a deputy was appointed in his place. After the death of Purshottam in 1940 in son the plaintiff-appellant Laxman became the Officiator.
3. In the year 1914 the descendants of Krishnarao, who were till then joint, effected a partition of the family property which consisted of Inam and Watan lands in various villages including the villages of Solsumbha, Maroli and Vavji. The document embodying the partition in Ex. 49. Under that partition lands which had so far been assigned for remuneration of the Patilki of Solsumbha were allotted to the branch of the defendants while some other lands were given to the branch of the plaintiff. It would appear that Purshottam had not subscribed to the partition deed in the beginning but later on he appears to have acquiesced in it and apparently for this reason it has been held by the Courts below that he was a party to the partition. It may be mentioned that after Purshottam had incurred a disqualification, the deputies who acted for him were not allowed to take possession of lands of Solsumbha which are now in dispute in spite of the objections raised by these persons. They were instead allowed a remuneration of Rs. 240/- per annum which was to be paid by the member of the family in possession of the Watan lands. This position continued till 1946.
4. It may be mentioned that after the death of Purshottam the plaintiff was initially appointed Patil for five years. But eventually he was appointed officiator for life.
5. In the year 1944 the plaintiff moved the Government, vide Ex. 47, for the exemption of the Watan lands which were in the possession of defendants 2 to 4 and for making them over to him. The Government, after causing some enquiry to be made, resumed those lands by its order dated October 9, 1946, Ex. 36, and directed their restoration to the plaintiff. The defendants thereafter moved the Government for reconsideration of that order. The Government eventually modified its previous order by directing that the defendants 2 to 4, who were in possession of the lands, should continue to retain it but that they should pay such amount of rent as may be fixed by Government from time to time. This order was passed on May 2, 1947 and by virtue of that order the rent payable by defendants 2 to 4 was raised from Rs. 240/- to Rupees 1,000/-, The plaintiff thereupon instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises for a declaration that the order of the Government dated May 2, 1949 and an ancillary order date March 1, 1949 are null and void and inoperative; that the defendants should remove "all obstructions and hindrances caused to the property acquired by th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
