JUDGMENT

SEN J.:—These twenty-seven appeals, by special leave, directed against a judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated Nov. 5, 1968 raise a common question and are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The short question involved in these matters relates to interpretation of S. 6 of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949, "the Taluqdari Abolition Act," and S. 7 of the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1952, "the Personal Inams Abolition Act."

3. In the present appeals, certain facts are no longer in dispute. The respondents are the erstwhile taluqdars or inamdars in what was known as Ghogha Mahal, which now forms part of the Bhavnagar district. There were vast stretches of hilly tracts described as Dungar, which were incapable of cultivation, but on which there was spontaneous growth of grass. These lands formed part of their taluqdari estates or inams. They used to sell the grass growing on these lands and it was a definite source of income to them. It appears that the lands were recorded as Kharaba in the record of rights and, therefore, consequent upon the abolition of taluqdari rights by the Taluqdari Abolition Act and with the abolition of inams under the Personal Inams Abolition Act, the lands were recorded as having vested in the Government. Thereupon, the respondents made separate claims before the Mahalkari, Ghogha Mahal, seeking a declaration under S. 37 (2) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879 that the lands were neither vacant lands nor uncultivated lands, and being in their possession, they became the occupants thereof.

4. In an enquiry held under S. 37 (2), the Mahalkari examined the claimants individually, the village talatis and the relevant entries in the record of rights which showed that the taluqdars and inamdars were deriving income from the grass growing on the lands. It was also in evidence that considerable effort and expenses had to be incurred by them for securing the income of this grass i.e., by keeping watchmen etc. to see that unauthorised pasturing by cattle brought on land or trespassing on it did not destroy the growing grass, but that it grew to full stature so as to give a fair and full yield. When operation for cutting of the grass used to commence, the stubs were not cut off but were allowed to remain intact so that the next year after the rains, the grass would grow naturally again. A portion of the grass-lands were also kept apart by the respondents for the grazing of their cattle by fencing of the area. The Mahalkari, Ghogha Mahal by his order dated October 28, 1958 held on this evidence that the lands could not be treated as waste lands or uncultivated lands, and since the respondents were in possession thereof, they became the occupants.

5. The Collector, Bhavnagar, in exercise of his suo motu powers of revision under S. 211 of the Code by his order dated February 28, 1961 set aside the orders of the Mahalkari and held in all these twenty-seven cases, that since the lands in question were not being cultivated by talukdars or inamdars, they must by reason of Explanation to S. 6 of the Taluqdari Abolition Act and Explanation to S. 7 of the Inams Abolition Act, be treated to be unoccupied lands, and therefore, the lands vest in the Government. The Revenue Tribunal, however, by its two orders dated June 19, 1962 and March 26, 1965, reversed the order of the Collector and restored that of the Mahalkari holding the respondents to be the occupants of the lands in question. The State Government of Gujarat filed twenty-seven writ petitions in the High Court for quashing the orders of the Revenue Tribunal.

6. Agreeing with the Revenue Tribunal, the High Court held that there was evidence that the lands in dispute were not lying desolate, abandoned or barren with no vegetation, but were, in fact, productive lands, in the sense that grass grew naturally and so, they could not be regarded as waste lands, although they were wrongly recorded as such. It also held that the hil