The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the grant, survey settlement, and non-agricultural assessment under the Bombay Land Revenue Code of 1879, and the legal validity of the levy of non-agricultural assessment by the Government.

Judgement

Law Rep. 76 Ind. App. 85 ( 1948- 1949) Government Province of Bom. v. Pestonji Ardeshir Wadia 37

Consolidated Appeals (No. 17 of 1947) from a judgment and two decrees of the High Court (April 3, 1941) confirming in the first appeal (A. No. 211 of 1938) the decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Thana (April 30, 1938) in suit No. 207 of 1936 (hereinafter called the " Vile Parle suit " from the village to which it related), and in the second appeal

(A. No. 216 of 1938) reversing the decree of the same date of the same Subordinate Judge in suit No. 115 of 1934 (hereinafter called the " Juhu suit " from the village to which it related.)

The following facts are taken from the judgment of the Judicial Committee. These appeals arose out of two suits which were brought against the Secretary of State for India, now represented by the Province of Bombay, hereinafter called the Government (appellant in the first and respondent in the second of these appeals—defendant), by Pestonji Ardeshir Wadia (respondent No. 1 in the first of these appeals and appellant in the second—plaintiff No. 2), and the other trustees of a trust (plaintiffs) created by one Nowroji Jamsetji Wadia with respect to two villages " Juhu " and " Vile Parle” for the recovery of non-agricultural assessment collected by the Government from certain lands in those villages.

By a grant in 1848, the Government granted to Nowroji the two villages, " Vile Parle and Juhu” which were situated in the island of Salsette. They had now become prosperous residential suburbs of Bombay. Shortly stated, the grant after reciting that the grantee had prayed that a Government grant of Rs. 4,000 per annum which he had enjoyed might be exchanged for a grant of villages in Salsette, stated that the two named villages " are hereby assigned to you and your heirs in perpetuity.” That statement was followed by a description of the boundaries of the villages, with a detailed statement of the land revenue paid by the occupant owners amounting to Rs. 4,679.1.8. From that was deducted the amount of your inam/ It was then stated that the difference along with the value of some trees, amounting in all to Rs. 700, was to be paid by the grantees annually. The Privy Council was called on to construe the meaning of that grant in a litigation in 1918 between the successors of the grantee and the Government of Bombay in Wadia v. Secretary of State for India (( 1928) L. R. 56 I. A. 51.), to which fuller reference will be made later. The Board decided that by that grant the grantee had become the owner of the villages with the obligation of making an annual money payment to the Government.

In 1879, the Bombay legislature passed an Act (Act V of 1879) called the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Section 48, sub-s. 1, of the Act declared that the land revenue leviable on any land under the provisions of the Act, shall be assessed or shall be deemed to have been assessed as the case may be with reference to the use of the land (A) for the purpose of " agriculture, (B) for the purpose of building, and (C) for a "purpose other than agriculture or building." Section 48, sub-s. 2, provided " where land assessed for use forany " purpose is used for any other purpose, the assessment fixed " under the provisions of this Act [the italics are by their Lordships shall, notwithstanding that the term for which such " assessment may have been fixed has not expired, be liable to " be altered and fixed at a different rate by such authority and " subject to such rules as the Provincial Government may " prescribe in this behalf. "Acting under that provision the Government began to levy non-agricultural assessment on all the lands in the two villages except as mentioned in the plaints.

The suits from which these appeals arose related to the recovery of the assessment from the Government on the ground that Nowroji became the full owner of the villages and as such was entitled to the amount recovered by the Government from