SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(SC) 709

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KULDIP SINGH AND N. M. KASLIWAL, JJ.
Mahisagar Bhatha Co-operative Agricultural Co-operative Society Ltd. Borsad, etc. etc., Appellants
Versus
Thakore Shree Jagdevsinhji Ramsinhji and another etc. etc., Respondents.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1150-51 of 1979
Decided on 2-9-1992.

Headnote:

Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949 - Taluqdari Abolition Act. - Section 6 - Except setting aside decree - Declaring ownership and possession - Suit for declaration - Execute decree for obtaining possession - Handing over possession - Appeals by grant of Special Leave are directed against common judgment of High Court of litigation has a long chequered history would succinctly narrate such facts necessary for disposal of appeals dead and now represented through his heirs and legal representatives was ruler of and he was also a registered and owner of five villages, including village - Village is situated on bank of river - Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration - Alleged suit lands were lands beyond purview of Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949 of Section 6 of Taluqdari Abolition Act - Plaintiffs case in regard was princely State of Ometa had merged in Union of India time by a merger agreement five villages were allowed as private properties of plaintiff and suit lands situated in one of such village Kothiakhad remained unaffected – Held, Government shall allot an area equivalent to permissible area - Legal representatives of plaintiff in a nearby vicinity or at any other place acceptable to mpossession of such equivalent land shall be given by State Government to respondents legal representatives of plaintiff within three months of decision of authorities under Act - Representatives of plaintiff shall not execute decree for possession till determination of ceiling proceedings well handing over possession of equivalent land as directed - Government to allot equivalent land in exchange to respondents as directed it would be open for respondents - Legal representatives of plaintiff to execute decree for obtaining possession of land in question itself to extent of permissible area determined under Act - State Government would be free problem in any other manner by consent of the respondents - Appeals are dismissed

JUDGMENT

KASLIWAL, J.:—Both those appeals by grant of Special Leave are directed against the common judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dated 6-4-1978. This litigation has a long chequered history but we would succinctly narrate such facts which are necessary for the disposal of these appeals. Thakor Sh. Jagdevsinghji since dead and now represented through his heirs and legal representatives (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) was the ruler of Umeta State and he was also a registered Talukdar and owner of five villages, including village Kothiykhad in the State of Gujarat. This village Kothiyakhad is situated on the bank of river Mahi. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he was the owner of suit land A Kothiakhad Bhatha bearing survey No. 247 admeasuring 100 acres and 38 gunthas and of landed property plot B referred to as Mahmedpura land and for recovery of possession and for rendition of accounts of income from 1-1-1952 till the date of handing over possession. The plaintiff had claimed the suit properties as his personal properties as a Talukdar and in the alternative it was alleged that the suit lands were Bhatha lands beyond the purview of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as Taluqdari Abolition Act) which came into operation w.e.f. 15-8-1950. The alternative case was put up by the plaintiff to meet the allegation of the State Government that the suit property lot A had vested in the State by virtue of Section 6 of the Taluqdari Abolition Act. The plaintiffs case in this regard was that the princely State of Ometa had merged in the Union of India and at that time by a merger agreement dated 24-5-1948 five villages were allowed as private properties of the plaintiff and the suit lands situated in one of such village Kothiakhad remained unaffected by the provisions of the Talukdari Abolition Act.

2. The Trial Court by Judgment dated 30-3-1971 declared that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit land survey No. 247 admeasuring 100 acres, 38 gunthas and also granted a decree for delivering the possession of this land and also held that the plaintiff was entitled to accounts for this land. The suit as regards Mahmedpura Bhatha land B was dismissed. It may be mentioned that the State of Gujarat allotted the suit lands to Mahisagar Bhatha Co-operative Agricultural Co-operative Society Limited, Gambhira (hereinafter referred to as the Society) during the pendency of this litigation and as such the Society was also impleaded as defendant in the suit. Aggrieved against the Judgment and decree of the Trial Court, first appeal No. 787 of 1971 was filed by the State of Gujarat, first appeal No. 799 of 1971 by the Society and first appeal No. 834 of 1971 by the plaintiff. The High Court disposed of all the three appeals by a common Judgment dated 6-4-1978. The High Court dismissed the first appeals Nos. 787 of 1971 and 799 of 1971 except setting aside the decree for taking accounts. Subject to the above variation, the decree passed by the trial Court for declaring ownership and possession in respect of land survey No. 247, the Judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge was confirmed. The appeal No. 834 of 1971 filed by the plainiff against the dismissal of his claim for Mehmadpura Bhatha land, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

3. The State of Gujarat and the Society have now come in appeal to this Court but no appeal has been filed by the plaintiff, as such we are only concerned with the Kothiakhad Bhatha land of survey No. 247.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have thoroughly perused the record. It was contended on behalf of the defendant/ appellants that the land came to be vested in the State of Gujarat under the provisions of Section 6 of the Talukdari Abolition Act. We do not find any force in this contention. Exhibit 102 merger agreement dated 24-5-1948 has been placed on record which c
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top