Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MYSORE
H. Hombe Gowda and D.M. Chandrashekhar, JJ.
Annaji Vasudev Dongarkar and others —Appellant
Vs.
Venkatesh Ramchandra Deshpande and another —Respondent
Regular Appeal (B) No. 346 of 1956
Decided on : 18-11-1965
Watan Abolition Act - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts - Section 3, 4(1), 203 of Bombay Land Revenue Code - The court discussed the jurisdiction of civil courts to decide who is entitled to get re-grant of the lands resumed to the Government under the Watan Abolition Act. The court held that the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to grant a declaration for re-grant under the Watan Abolition Act. The Act provides a particular mode for enforcing the right to re-grant, and the decision or order of the revenue authority is final and cannot be questioned in any civil court. The court also emphasized that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to examine whether the provisions of the statute have been complied with by the statutory tribunal and whether that tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure or of natural justice. However, the plaintiffs did not seek the relief of setting aside the orders of the revenue authorities, and hence, the court could not entertain the contention that the orders should be set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction or violation of statutory requirements or principles of natural justice.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs brought a suit praying for a declaration that they were entitled to obtain re-grant of the suit lands and for injunction restraining the defendants from recovering rents from the tenants of those lands and exercising any acts of ownership or management in respect of those lands adversely to plaintiffs. The suit lands were resumed by the Government under the Watan Abolition Act, and the plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to re-grant of the lands. The trial court held that the plaintiffs' title to the suit lands got extinguished when they were resumed by the Government, and the defendants became the owners of these lands by virtue of their re-grant by the Government. The court declined to grant the declaration and injunction sought for by the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to grant a declaration for re-grant under the Watan Abolition Act. The court also held that the plaintiffs did not seek the relief of setting aside the orders of the revenue authorities, and hence, the court could not entertain the contention that the orders should be set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction or violation of statutory requirements or principles of natural justice.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide who is entitled to get re-grant of the lands resumed to the Government under the Watan Abolition Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to grant a declaration for re-grant under the Watan Abolition Act. The Act provides a particular mode for enforcing the right to re-grant, and the decision or order of the revenue authority is final and cannot be questioned in any civil court. The court also emphasized that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to examine whether the provisions of the statute have been complied with by the statutory tribunal and whether that tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure or of natural justice.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court held that the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to grant a declaration for re-grant under the Watan Abolition Act. The court also held that the plaintiffs did not seek the relief of setting aside the orders of the revenue authorities, and hence, the court could not entertain the contention that the orders should be set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction or violation of statutory requirements or principles of natural justice.
Chandrashekhar, J.—The question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether civil Courts have jurisdiction to decide who is entitled to get re-grant of the lands resumed to the Government under the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Watan Abolition Act').
2. The plaintiffs brought a suit praying for a declaration that they were entitled to obtain re-grant of the suit lands and for injunction restraining the defendants from recovering rents from the tenants of those lands and exercising any acts of ownership or management in respect of those lands adversely to plaintiffs. Having failed in the suit the plaintiffs have come up in appeal.
3. The following facts are undisputed between the parties :
The defendants are the Watandars of the family of Kamatanurkar Deshpande. The suit lands bearing R. S. Nos. 334/1 and 335 in Karoshi village, Chikodi Taluka, Belgaum District and certain other lands were Paragana Watan lands. The suit lands were granted by the ancestors of the defendants to one Narasimhabhat prior to the year 1827. The last male holder in the family of Narasimhabhat was one Shankar Gopal who died on 21-4-1947. He had no sons ana his only daughter, Banubai alias Rukmini Bai, survived him. The plaintiffs are the sons of Banu Bai.
4. The suit lands have all along been in the actual possession of tenants. In the Record of Rights the suit lands stood in the name of Shankar Gopal. After his death, the defendants made an application to the revenue authorities praying that the suit lands be entered in their names in place of that of deceased Shankar Gopal in the Record of Rights. Their application was opposed by the plaintiffs and after contest the Extra Avval Karkoon entered the Defendants' names in the Record of Rights against the suit lands, by his order dated 12-7-1951. The plaintiffs went up in appeal to the Prant Officer against the said mutation of parties. But the Prant Officer dismissed their appeal by his order dated 26-11-1951.
5. The Watan Abolition Act came into force on 1-5-1951. The suit lands were resumed by the Government under Section 3 of that Act. On 12-8-1952, a fresh entry was made in the Record of Rights relating to these lands substituting the name of the Government for the names of the defendants.
6. After resumption of the suit lands the defendants made an application for re-grant of the lands under Section 4(1) of the Watan Abolition Act and deposited a sum equal to six times the assessment on the lands. The Prant Officer re-granted the suit lands to the defendants under Section 4(1) of the Watan Abolition Act, by his order dated 22-11-1953.
7. The plaintiffs made an application to the Collector, Belgaum, on 4-5-1954, praying for re-grant of the suit lands under Section 4(1) of the Watan Abolition Act. They claimed that they were the holders of the suit lands, that they had acquired a valid title to them before the Watan Abolition Act had come into force. But the plaintiffs did not deposit the occupancy price as required by Section 4(1) of the Watan Abolition Act, but merely stated in their application that they were willing to pay that price. Their application was rejected by the Prant Officer to whom presumably the Collector had referred their application. The order of the Prant Officer is dated 12-1-1955, but it was communicated by the Mamlatdar by his letter dated 28-1-1955 to plaintiff-1.
8. On 20-12-1955 the plaintiffs made another application to the Collector, purporting to be an appeal against the order of the Prant Officer. The Collector dismissed the appeal as barred by time, by his order dated 15-2-1956.
9. The present suit was filed on 18-9-1954, that is, after the plaintiffs had made an application to the Collector for the re-grant of suit lands but before that application was rejected by the Prant Officer.
10. The plaintiffs alleged in the plaint that the suit lands were given to their ancestor, Narasimhabhat, as Pot Inam;
AI
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
