Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I., R.S. BACHAWAT, G.K. MITTER, C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, AND K.S. HEGDE JJ.
State of Gujarat etc., Appellants
VERSUS
Vakhatsingh Vajesinghji Vaghela (dead) his legal representatives and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 517 to 534 of 1965, D/- 8-4-1968.
Mr. N. S. Bindra, Senior Advocate, (Mr. S. P. Nayar, Advocate, with him), for Appellant (In C. As. Nos. 517 to 528 of 1965) and for Respondent and for State of Gujarat (In C. As. Nos. 529 to 534 of 1985); Mr. A. K. Sen, Senior Advocate. (Miss Bhuvanesh Kumari, Advocate M/s. T. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., and Mr. M. H. Chhatrapati, Advocate, with him), for Respondent No. 1 (In C. As. Nos. 517 and 524 of 1965), Mr. A. K. Sen, Senior Advocate, (Mr. M. H. Chhatrapati and Miss Bhuvanesh Kumari, Advocates, and M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., with him), for Respondent No. 1 (In C. As. Nos. 518 to 522 of 1985) and the Appellant (In C. A. No. 530 of l965), Mr. M. H. Chhatrapati and Miss Bhuvanesh Kumari, Advocates, and M/s. I. B. Dadachanji and Co., for Respondent No. 1 (In C. As. Nos. 528 and 526 to 528 of 1965) and the Appellant (In C. AS. Nos. 529 and 531 to 534 of 1965); Mr. N. A. Palkhivala, Senior Advocate, (Mr. M. H. Chhatrapati and Miss Bhuvanesh Kumari, Advocates, and M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co. with him), for Respondent No. 1 (In C. A. No. 525 of 1965).
Gujarat Taluqdars Act, 1888 – Sections 22, 3 – Bombay Taluqdari Abolition Act 1849 – Sections 7, 14, 2, 5, 17 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 227, 31 – Award of compensation – Appeals are directed against orders of Gujarat High Court passed under Art. 227 of Constitution revising appellate orders of Bombay Revenue Tribunal modifying certain awards of Special Deputy Collector, claims for compensation under Sections 7 and 14 of Bombay Taluqdari Abolition Act 1849 were filed before Collector by the Taluqdars of certain villages in district of Ahmedabad – Collector made his awards of compensation under Sections 7 and 14 – Claimants filed appeals before Revenue Tribunal and later petitions under Art: 227 of Constitution to High Court – Present appeals are filed by State of Gujarat and some of claimants – Principal matters in controversy these appeals relate to award of compensation under head; (i) difference in jama and full assessment, (ii) solatium of 15 per cent on market value, (iii) irrigational bunds, tanks and wells and (iv) river and river beds – Held, Article 227 of Constitution gives High Court power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction – This jurisdiction cannot be limited or fettered by any Act of State Legislature. – Supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping subordinate tribunal within limits of their authority and seeing that they obey law. – It was the duty of Revenue Tribunal 1489 to award compensation to the Taluqdars in accordance with the provisions of Sections 7 and 14 of the Act. – High Court had jurisdiction to revise decision of Tribunal where the Tribunal on a misreading of provisions of Sections 7 and 14 declined to do what was by those provisions of law incumbent on it to do. – Tested in this light it does not appear that High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227 in revising decision of Tribunal in respect of solatium and irrigational bunds tanks and wells. – 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 Ss. 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, 1955-1 SCR 1104 at p. 1120 -(AIR 1955 SC 233 at pp. 242-243) High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot only annul decision of Tribunal but can also issue further direction in matter – In modification of High Courts decision in respect of solatium of 15 per centum on market value, court direct that in all these cases the 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. – Appeals Dismissed
Judgement
BAGHAWAT, J. : 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 Sections 7 and 14 of the Bombay Taluqdari Abolition Act 1849 (Bombay Act LXII of 1948) were filed before the Collector by the Taluqdars of certain villages in the district of Ahmedabad. The Collector made his awards of compensation under Sections 7 and 14. The claimants filed ap -peals before the Revenue Tribunal and later petitions under Art: 227 of the Constitution to the High Court. The present appeals are flied by the State of Gujarat and some of the claimants. The principal matters in controversy m these appeals relate to the award of compensation under the head; (i) difference in jama and full assessment, (ii) solatium of 15 per cent 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 28th December, 1885, Part V, at p. 65 and Nawab Sardar Narharsinghji Ishvarsinghji v. Secretary of State, 48 Bom LR 167 = (AIR 1941 Bom l6l). 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 u 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 Section 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. Sections 22 and 23 deal with the taluqdars jama :
"22. (1) If a taluqdars estate, or any portion thereof is not wholly or partially exempt from land-revenue and it liability to payment of land revenue is not subject to special condition" 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, 1484 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 fi
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.
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
