1. Dispute regarding the applicability of the Salsette Estates (Land Revenue Exemption Abolition) Act, 1951, to villages held under a grant exempt from land revenue. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1963 Supreme(SC) 100
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., J.C. SHAH AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.
Byramjee Jeejeebhoy (P) Ltd., Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 560 of 1962.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. T. Desai, Senior Advocate, (M/s. V. J. Merchant and R. A. Gagrat, Advocates of M/s. Gagrat and Co. with him), for Appellant; Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Attomey General for India, Mr. S. G. Patwardhan, Senior Advocate, (Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Advocate, with them), for Respondent.
Advocates:
C.K.DAFTARY, R.A.GAGRAT, R.H.Dhebar, S.G.PATVARDHAN, S.T.DESAI, V.J.MERCHANT
C.K.DAFTARY, R.A.GAGRAT, R.H.Dhebar, S.G.PATVARDHAN, S.T.DESAI, V.J.MERCHANT
A grant of land in absolute right, where the exemption from land revenue is subject to specific covenants and conditions, constitutes an "agreement" (kowl) under the Salsette Estates (Land Revenue Exemption Abolition) Act, 1951, making the land an "estate" subject to the abolition of such exemptions.
Headnote:(A) Salsette Estates (Land Revenue Exemption Abolition) Act, 1951 - Sections 2(b), 2(d), 3(1), and 3(3) - Definition of 'estate' and 'kowl' - Abolition of land revenue exemptions - Whether land granted absolutely but subject to certain conditions and exemptions constitutes an 'estate' held under an 'agreement' - A grant that confers ownership but makes the exemption from land revenue subject to specific covenants, such as the payment of nominal rent and the protection of tenant rights, constitutes an 'agreement' within the meaning of the Act, regardless of the absolute nature of the land grant. (Paras 10, 11)
(B) Salsette Estates (Land Revenue Exemption Abolition) Act, 1951 - Section 3(3) - Scope of exemption - The provision saving the right of persons to hold land exempt from land revenue under a special contract or grant applies only to persons other than the estate-holder. The estate-holder is expressly excluded from the benefit of this saving clause. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
The appellant held seven villages under a grant that freed them from previous obligations and land revenue liability in consideration of improvements made and a payment to the government. The grant, however, imposed certain restrictions, including the payment of a nominal annual rent and the maintenance of certain customary allowances and tenant rights. Following the enactment of legislation to abolish land revenue exemptions for specified estates, the government sought to impose land revenue and vest waste lands. The appellant contended that as an absolute owner, the legislation did not apply.
Findings of Court:
The court found that while the grant was not a lease or a farm, it constituted an 'agreement' because the exemption from land revenue was conditional upon the fulfillment of specific covenants. Consequently, the villages were an 'estate' under the Act. Furthermore, the statutory saving clause for exemptions did not extend to the estate-holder.
Issues: (1) Whether villages held under a grant of absolute ownership, but with conditional exemptions from land revenue, constitute an 'estate' held under a 'kowl' (agreement) within the meaning of the Act; and (2) Whether the exemption from land revenue is saved by the provision protecting rights of persons other than the estate-holder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to hold land free from land revenue is a prerogative of the sovereign. When such an exemption is granted subject to conditions and covenants, it creates a contractual obligation, thus fitting the definition of an 'agreement' under the Act, even if the land itself is granted in absolute right. The statutory exemption for "persons other than the estate-holder" explicitly excludes the estate-holder from claiming continued exemption.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the villages constitute an estate held under a kowl and whether the land revenue exemption is saved by statutory provisions. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 11 )
3. The grant conferred ownership, but the exemption from land revenue was subject to specific covenants, thereby constituting an agreement under the Act. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. An exemption from land revenue granted by the State subject to specific conditions constitutes an agreement, rendering the land an estate under the Act. (Para 10 , 11 )
5. Appeal dismissed; the villages are held to be an estate and the land revenue exemption is abolished. (Para 12 , 13 )
6. Does a grant of ownership with conditions on land revenue exemption constitute an agreement under the Act?
Yes. Even if land is held in absolute right, the right to hold it free from land revenue subject to specific covenants—such as paying nominal rent or respecting tenant rights—constitutes an agreement under the definition of kowl. (Para 10 , 11 )
7. How does the court distinguish a grant of ownership from a lease or a farm?
A lease transfers the right of enjoyment for a term or perpetuity. A farm involves a grantee acting as an agent to recover revenue for the State. A grant of ownership confers title and the right to appropriate collections. (Para 8 , 9 )
8. Does the statutory saving clause for land revenue exemptions protect the estate-holder?
No. The saving clause specifically protects the rights of persons other than the estate-holder to hold land exempt from land revenue under a special contract or grant. (Para 12 )
Judgment
SHAH, J. :
By an agreement called Kowl dated October 2, 1830 the Principal Collector of Konkan conferred on behalf of the East India Company "farm rights" upon one Cursetjee Cowasjee Banajee - hereinafter called "Banajee" - in seven villages (1) Mogra, (2) Wasivre, (3) Bandivili, (4) Majas, (5) Part Pahadi, (6) Goregaon and (7) Poisar on terms and conditions set out therein. By two letters dated October 17, 1835 and July 17, 1841 the original cowl was modified and Banajee was required to pay an amount to the East India Company of Rs. 2,708/7 /- per annum in consideration of the benefits conferred upon him by the said cowl. Banajee constructed extensive salt works in the villages and expended Rs. 2 lakhs in improving and developing the villages. On September 22, 1847 the East India Company granted to Banajee the seven villages on certain terms, freed from the covenants of the cowl, and also from liability to pay assessment on land revenue in consideration of the amount spent by him for improving the villages, and an amount of Rs. 30,000/-paid by him to the East India Company. The villages were held and enjoyed by the successors of Banajee under the terms of the grant without payment of land revenue till the year 1952. The Legislature of the Bombay State enacted the Salstte Estates (Land Revenue Exemption Abolition) Act, XLVII of 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) which received the assent of the President on Jan. 4, 1952 and was brought into force on March 1, 1952. The Act was enacted as a measure of agrarian reform and formed part of a pattern of legislation undertaken by the State of Bombay to abolish the rights of intermediaries between the State and the cultivator of the soil. The Act provided for abolition of exemptions from payment of land revenue enjoyed by estate-holders, in certain specified villages in the Island of Salsette, and for the vesting of waste lands in the villages.
2. The Collector of Bombay Suburban District by his letter dated February 28, 1952 informed the appellant - who is the successor-in-interest of Banajee under the grant that with effect from March 1, 1952 as provided by S. 4 of the Act all waste lands which were not the property of the estate-holder under the kowl and all waste lands which had been demised in the kowl as the property of the estateholder but which had not been appropriated before August 14, 1951 and all other kinds of property referred to in S. 37 of the Land Revenue Code and which were not the property of any individual or an aggregate of persons legally capable of holding the same shall vest in the Government. He also invited attention to the provisions of Ss. 3 and 5 of the Act and informed the appellant that the Bombay Land Revenue Code will apply to all lands of the appellant s villages with effect from March 1, 1952 and directed the appellant from that date not "to collect land revenue or rent as the case may be in respect of the lands to which the provisions of the Act" applied. By letter dated March 5, 1952 the appellant submitted that the seven villages were held as absolute owner under and by virtue of the indenture of conveyance dated September 22, 1847 between the East India Company and Banajee and that under the terms of the grant all the lands in the villages were absolutely and for ever freed and discharged from the obligations of the Kowl of 1830 and also freed and discharged from all liability to pay land revenue under Regulation XVII of 1827 and from all liability for assessment in the nature of land revenue, and that the Act did not and could act apply to the lands of the appellant in the above-mentioned villages - the appellant being the absolute owner of the land in the villages. By letter dated June 25, 1952 the Collector informed the appellant that the provisions of the Act were applicable to the seven villages and the requisition to treat the villages otherwise could not be granted.
3. On November 28, 1952 the appellant commenced an action against the S
