The proviso to Section 5 of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act applied only to individual Girasdars owning one or more villages, and not to Girasdars who held lands jointly as tenants-in-common.

1. The petitioner and his four brothers had as Cadets of the former Lakhtar State received as Giras from that State four villages viz. Moti Kishol, Mul Kishol, Rupavati and Karangadh and other lands situate in the village of Talavani, and had obtained the Hak Patrak dated 15th October 1928 duly registered before the Political Agent of the old Eastern Kathiawar Agency.

2. Of these villages only Karangadh and the lands situated in Talavani are situate within the territory of the then State of Saurashtra and therefore, the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act XXV of 1951 as stated in Section 2 thereof would only be applicable to those lands situate in the villages of Karangadh and Talvani. The case of the petitioner is that being divided and separate in food, worship and estate he and his brothers are holding the Giras as tenants-in-common as the lands are not yet divided by motes and bounds. They therefore say that they are Girasdars within the meaning of Section 2 (15) of the said Act.

3. The applicant on behalf of himself and his four brothers made an application before the Mamlatdar of Lakhtar as provided for by Clause 1 of Section 16 of the Act for allotment of the lands describing themselves therein as Girasdars of "A" class. On the 19th December 1952 however the petitioner applied to the Mamlatdar stating that it was through an error that he had described himself and his brothers as "A" class Girasdars but that they were in fact "E" class Girasdars. Their contention was that they were riot "A" class Girasdars because the total area of agricultural lands in their possession and enjoyment Was only 495 acres and 37 gunthas in Karangadh and 180 acres and 26 gunthas in Talavani village aggregating in all to 676 acres and 23 gunthas and therefore they contended that under Section 5 of the Act they would be Girasdars of "B" class only. In that application they also stated that since they have had already in their possession 180 acres 26 gunthas for personal cultivation as Girasdars, no. question of any allotment remained to be determined.

4. By his order dated the 25th of February 1953 the Malatdar declared the petitioner and his brothers as "A" class Girasdars and in that order agreed that no question of allotment arose as the applicant and his brothers were already in possession of 180 acres and 26 gunthas of land as Gharkhed lands. The Mamlatdar however made no order on the second application dated 19th of December 1952 whereby the petitioner had asked for the amendment of his original application by stating that they were not "A" class but "B" class Girasdars. Both the Deputy Collector of Limbdi and the Revenue Tribunal confirmed the said order by their orders in appeals before them dated 8th May J954 and 11th November 1954 respectively. The Revenue Tribunal held that under the proviso to Section 5 of the Act the petitioner and his brothers were Girasdars of "A", class.

5. Mr. Shah for the petitioner contended that the applicant and his brothers being tenants-in-common which position was not disputed before any of the Tribunals below and the total agricultural lands owned by them being only 676 acres and 23 gunthas they should have been treated as "B" class Girasdars. He further contended that the proviso to Section 5 did not apply to them as it contemplated individual Girasdars and not Girasdars who hold the lands jointly as tenants-in-common. He also contended and that has not been disputed by the learned Special Government Pleader that the village Karangadh is not included in Schedule 2 of the Act as majmu village and therefore Karangadh cannot be regarded as the Girasdars village under the proviso to Section 5 of the Act.

6. He further contended that the order passed by the Tribunal was illegal since the petitioner and his brothers have had already in their possession 180 acres and odd as Gharkhed lands and therefore since no question of allotment remained to be decided the only thing that remained to be done by the Tribu