SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.Hidayatullah, CJI. C.A.Vaidialingam : G.K.Mitter : K.S.Hegde : R.S.Bachawat, JJ.
State Of Gujarat
Versus
Vakhatsinghji Vajesinghji Vaghela
Case No. : 517 , 534 of 1965
Date of Decision : 4/8/68
Advocates Appeared: Bindra N.S. : Chhatrapati M.H. : Dadachanji J.B. : Kumari Bhuvanesh : Kumari Bhuvnesh : Mathur O.C. : Nair S.P. : Narain Ravindra : Nayar S.P. : Palkhivala N.A. : Sen A.K.
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 227 and 31B - Bombay Taluqdari Abolition Act, 1949 - Section 7, 12 and 14 - Gujarat Taluqdars Act, 1888 - Section 2(1)(c) and 4 - Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949 - Gujarat Taluqdars Act, 1888 - Section 3 and 4 - Land Revenue Code - Section 5(1)(a), (b) - Abolition Act - Section 14(1), 7 and 7.(1) and 5(1)(a) - Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917 - Section 88 - Central Provinces Revision of Land Revenue of Estates Act, 1939 - Land Compensation Act, 1961 - Section 5 - Acquisition of Land Act, 1919 - Land Acquisition Act, 1848 - Section 23 - Award of Compensation - Solatium - Market Value - Irrigational Bunds Tanks - Present appeals are filed by State and some of claimants - Principal matters in controversy in these appeals, relate to award of compensation under heads difference in Jama and full assessment, solatium of 15% on market value, irrigational bunds tanks and wells and river and river beds – Held, Numerous cases were pending before Revenue tribunal in respect of compensation payable to taluqdars under Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act - To prevent miscarriage of justice it was necessary for High court to lay down general principles on which compensation should be assessed so that tribunal may act within limits of their authority - On finding that tribunal had misconceived its duties under sees 7 and 14, High court could not only set aside its decision, but also direct it to make further inquiries after taking evidence - As pointed out in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmed Ishaque High court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 227 cannot only annul decision of tribunal but ,can also issue further direction in matter - In result, in modification of High courts decision in respect of solatium of 15 per centum on market value, Court direct that in all these cases taluqdars be awarded solatium in accordance with this judgment – Court set aside High courts ,decision with regard to river and river beds - Instead, Court direct -that Special Deputy Collector will inquire into claim for compensation for Bhathas, if any, formed in river and other portions of river beds, if any, where crops could be raised during some Parts of year, particularly during summer - Special Deputy Collector will make awards under these two heads after giving opportunity to parties to adduce evidence Subject to these modifications, appeals are dismissed and decision of High court in other respects is confirmed - Appeals dismissed
R.S.BACHAWAT, J.
(1) THESE appeals are directed against the orders of the Gujarat High Court passed under Art. 227 of the, Constitution revising the appellate orders of the Bombay Revenue tribunal modifying certain awards of the Special Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad. Claims for compensation under secs. 7 and 14 of the Bombay Taluqdari Abolition Act, 1949 (Bombay Act LXII of 1949) were filed before the Collector by the Taluqdars of certain villages in the district of Ahmedabad. The Collector made his awards of compensation under secs. 7 and 14. The claimants filed appeals before the Revenue tribunal and later petitions under Art. 227 of the Constitution to the High court. The present appeals are filed by the State of Gujarat and some of the claimants. The principal matters in controversy in these appeals, relate to the award of compensation under the heads : (i) difference in Jama and full assessment, (ii) solatium of 15% on the market value, (iii) irrigational bunds tanks and wells and (iv) river and river beds.
(2) EXCELLENT accounts of the history and incidents of the taluqdari tenures are given in Dr. Govind D. Patels Agrarian Reforms in Bombay, 1950, Mr. J. B. Peiles Report, government Selection No. CVI New Series, p. 13, Mr. L. Robertsons Report on the conditions, of the taluqdars of the Ahmedabad district, 1903, statement of objects and reasons for Bill No. 6 of 1885 printed in Bombay government Gazette, dated the 26th December, 1885, Part V, at p. 65 and Nawab Sardar Narharsinghji Ishvarsinghji v. The secretary of State for India(1). The origin of the Gujarat taluqdars may be traced to Moghul and pre-Moghul times. They are found mainly in the districts of Ahmedabad, Kaira, Broach and the Panchmahals. The leading characteristics of the taluqdari tenure is that the taluqdari estate is neither alienated nor unalienated but is proprietary. Until 1862 the taluqdars were legally though incorrectly regarded as mere lease holders. From 1862 till 1888 they were full proprietors with unlimited powers of alienation. From 1888 onwards they were full proprietors with restricted powers of alienation. Their estates were subject to payment of a jama to the government. Originally the jama was regarded as a tribute but later it became a roughly calculated tax on the rental, then a land tax and finally land revenue. Acts were passed from time to time for ameliorating the conditions of the taluqdars. Since 1888 the taluqdari villages and estates were governed by the provisions of the Gujarat Taluqdars Act, 1888 (Bom. Act VI of 1888). Under sec. 2(1)(c) of this Act Jama meant land revenue payable by the taluqdars to the government. Section 4 empowered the government to direct a revenue survey of a taluqdari estate under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. S. 22 and 23 deal with the taluqdarsjama : `22(1). If a taluqdars estate, or any portion thereof is not wholly or partially exempt from land-revenue and its liability to payment of land revenue is not subject to special conditions or restrictions, the jama payable to (the Provincial government) in respect of such estate or portion thereof shall, if a survey settlement has been extended thereto, be the aggregate of the survey assessment of the lands composing such estate or such portion thereof minus such deduction, if any, as (the Provincial government) shall in each case direct. (2) The (Provincial government) may declare the amount of jama so ascertained fixed for any term not exceeding thirty years. 23(1) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to affect the validity of any agreement, heretofore, entered into by or with a taluqdar and still in force as to the amount of his jama nor of any settlement of the, amount of jama made by or under the orders of the (Provincial government) for a term of years and still in force. (2) Every such agreement and settlement shall have effect as if this Act had not been passed.` The jama was usually fixed (uddhad) in respect o
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.