The occupancy of the land regranted under section 5(1) of the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958 was not transferable or partible without the Collector's prior sanction and payment of ten times the assessment under section 5(3) of the Act. The Collector was bound to pass an order under section 5(3) of the Act on payment of ten times the assessment and had no discretion to refuse to release the land if the Nazarana was paid by the holder. The summary eviction of the petitioners under section 59(b) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 was not justified as the Collector had failed to pass an order under section 5(3) of the Abolition Act.

Headnote:
ABOLITION ACT - INFERIOR VILLAGE WATANS ABOLITION ACT, 1958 - SECTION 5(3) - OCCUPANCY OF LAND REGRANTED - TRANSFERABILITY AND PARTIBILITY - PAYMENT OF TEN TIMES THE ASSESSMENT - COLLECTOR'S SANCTION - SUMMARY EVICTION UNDER SECTION 59 OF THE MAHARASHTRA LAND REVENUE CODE, 1966 - CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO THE TENURE - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, who were purchasers of land from ex-Watandars, challenged the orders of summary eviction passed against them by the Collectors under section 59(b) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The Collectors had found that the petitioners were in unauthorized occupation of the land as the ex-Watandars had transferred the land to them in breach of the conditions attached to the occupancy, namely, that the land was not transferable or partible without the Collector's prior sanction and payment of ten times the assessment under section 5(3) of the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958 (the Abolition Act).
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the conditions attached to the occupancy of the land regranted under section 5(1) of the Abolition Act were that the land was not transferable or partible without the Collector's prior sanction and payment of ten times the assessment under section 5(3) of the Act. The Court further held that the Collector was bound to pass an order under section 5(3) of the Abolition Act on payment of ten times the assessment and that the Collector had no discretion to refuse to release the land if the Nazarana was paid by the holder. The Court also held that the summary eviction of the petitioners under section 59(b) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 was not justified as the Collector had failed to pass an order under section 5(3) of the Abolition Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the conditions attached to the occupancy of the land regranted under section 5(1) of the Abolition Act were that the land was not transferable or partible without the Collector's prior sanction and payment of ten times the assessment under section 5(3) of the Act? 2. Whether the Collector was bound to pass an order under section 5(3) of the Abolition Act on payment of ten times the assessment? 3. Whether the Collector had the discretion to refuse to release the land if the Nazarana was paid by the holder? 4. Whether the summary eviction of the petitioners under section 59(b) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 was justified?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the conditions attached to the occupancy of the land regranted under section 5(1) of the Abolition Act were that the land was not transferable or partible without the Collector's prior sanction and payment of ten times the assessment under section 5(3) of the Act. The Court relied on the plain reading of section 5(3) of the Abolition Act, which stated that "The occupancy of the land regranted under sub-section (1) shall not be transferable or partible by metes and bounds without the previous sanction of the Collector and except on payment of such amount as the State Government may by general or special order determine." 2. The Court held that the Collector was bound to pass an order under section 5(3) of the Abolition Act on payment of ten times the assessment. The Court relied on the Government Circulars issued in 1955 and 1954, which stated that the release of the land from inalienability and impartibility on payment of the prescribed amount was almost automatic and that the Collector had no discretion to refuse to release the land if the Nazarana was paid by the holder. 3. The Court held that the Collector had no discretion to refuse to release the land if the Nazarana was paid by the holder. The Court relied on the Government Circulars issued in 1955 and 1954, which stated that the release of the land from inalienability and impartibility on payment of the prescribed amount was almost automatic and that the Collector had no discretion to refuse to release the land if the Nazarana was paid by the holder. 4. The Court held that the summary eviction of the petitioners under section 59(b) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 was not justified as the Collector had failed to pass an order under section 5(3) of the Abolition Act. The Court held that the Collector's failure to pass an order under section 5(3) of the Abolition Act was a breach of his statutory duty and that the summary eviction of the petitioners was therefore illegal.
Final Decision: The Court quashed and set aside the orders of summary eviction passed against the petitioners and directed the Collector to pass the formal order of regrant and conversion from new tenure to the old one in respect of the lands where ten times the assessment had been paid. The Court also directed the Collector to consider whether action under section 59 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 survived in respect of the lands where ten times the assessment had not been paid, in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 11th September, 1968.

JUDGMENT - B.S. DESHMUKH, C. J.:---These petitions involve a common question of law relating to the real meaning and interpretation of sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Abolition Act) and the right of the Collector under section 59 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Code). While dealing with each case, we will narrate the detailed facts and circumstances relevant to that particular case. Suffice it to point out in a broad manner as to how this dispute reached this Court and what points are involved.

2. All the lands, which are involved in the above petitions were formerly inferior watans before the said watan was abolished by the Abolition Act of 1958. The broad scheme of the Abolition Act is that on the appointed day, notwithstanding anything in any usage, custom, settlement, grant agreement sanad, or in any decree or order of a Court or in the existing watan law, all the inferior village watans stood abolished, and all incidents, including the right to hold office and watan property, the right to levy customary fees or perquisites in money or in kind, and the liability to render service, appertaining to the said watans were also thereby extinguished. Subject to the provisions of sections 5, 6 and 9 all watan land stood resumed and was thereafter subject to the payment of the land revenue under the provisions of the Code and the rules made thereunder as it were an unalienated land.

3. Prima facie, therefore, subject to the provisions of sections 5, 6 and 9, all inferior watans stood abolished and all the lands pertaining to this watan stood resumed to Government and became in law, on the appointed day, the unalienated Government land. However, the same Abolition Act simultaneously provided for regrant of the watan land. Except where orders are passed under sections 6 and 9, normally under section 5 the watan land was to be regranted to the original Watandar himself. Section 5 has three sub-sections. Sub-sections (1) and (3) are relevant for our purpose. The watan lands were of two types; some were subjected to the payment of the amount equal to the full assessment, and the others were subjected to the payment of three times the assessment by the Watandar under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Abolition Act and the moment he did that the land was to be regranted to him. Therefore, on payment by the Watanadar to the State Government of the occupancy price equal to three times the assessment of the land within the prescribed period and in the prescribed manner, the Government had to regrant the land to the Watandar, who was to be deemed to be an occupant within the meaning of the Code with all the liabilities arising under the Code, the rules made thereunder or under any other law for the time being in force. If this payment was not made by the Watandar within the prescribed time, the land which was already resumed by Government vests in the Government and the ex-Watandar would become a trespasser and an unauthorised occupant after the prescribed period. The ex-Watandar would then be liable to be evicted summarily but would still be liable to pay the land revenue during the period during which he would make up his mind whether to pay three times the assessment or not. Once the payment is made, the grant followed almost automatically and the ex-Watandar had to execute a Kabulayat in that behalf accepting the land from the Government on the usual terms and conditions under the Code. At this stage sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Abolition Act becomes most important and relevant and is quoted for ready reference:---

Section 5(3) : "The occupancy of the land regranted under sub-section (1) shall not be transferable or partible by metes and bounds without the previous sanction of the Collector and except on payment of such amount as the State Government may by general or special order determine."

4. The o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis