Maharana Shri... vs The State of Bombay and Others

Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case Number: Civil Appeals Nos. 254 to 256 of 1958

Decision Date: 16 December 1958

Coram: Natwarlal H. Bhagwati, Bhuvneshwar P. Sinha, K.N. Wanchoo, Subba Rao

In this case the petitioner, Maharana Shri Jayavantsinhji Ranmalsinhji, challenged the State of Bombay and other respondents. The judgment was delivered on 16 December 1958 by a bench of the Supreme Court of India that included Justices Natwarlal H. Bhagwati, Bhuvneshwar P. Sinha and K.N. Wanchoo. The official citation of the decision is reported in 1959 AIR 547 and in the Supreme Court Reporter Supplement (1) 911. The statutory provisions that were examined relate to the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act 1949, particularly section 5(2); the Gujarat Taluqdars Act 1888, sections 22 and 23; and the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879, section 117R.

The appellants were holders of taluqdari villages situated in the Ahmedabad district of the then State of Bombay. Under a revision settlement of land revenue for the financial year 1922‑23, the aggregate amount of land revenue payable by each taluqdari estate was fixed. In the subsequent year 1925‑26, exercising the authority conferred by section 22 of the Gujarat Taluqdars Act 1888, the Government of Bombay determined and declared a jama — a fixed contribution — for each taluq. This declared jama was considerably lower than the full land revenue assessed for the estates and the declaration was intended to remain effective for a period of thirty years.

The Bombay Taluqdari Abolition Act 1949 later abolished the appellants’ taluqdari estates, converting them into occupants of the land. Consequently, after the expiration of the thirty‑year period fixed in the 1925‑26 declaration, the appellants were required to pay the full land‑revenue assessment on the lands. The appellants contended that, pursuant to section 117R of the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879, the Governor‑in‑Council’s declaration fixing the jama for thirty years should continue to operate even after the expiry of that period until a new revision settlement was made. They argued that the statute barred the Government from demanding a higher revenue amount until such a revision occurred.

The Court rejected this contention. It held that the jama payable by the Taluqdars under section 22 of the Gujarat Taluqdars Act 1888 was distinct from the land‑revenue assessment that formed part of the taluqdari estate and therefore could not be equated with it. The declaration made under section 22, and the fixation of the jama under section 23(1), constituted a settlement between the Government and the Taluqdar, but this settlement was not a settlement of land revenue within the meaning of section 117R of the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879. Moreover, section 5(2)(b) of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act 1949 expressly preserved the settlement made under section 23 and the declaration under section 22 of the Gujarat Taluqdars Act. Accordingly, the appellants were liable to pay the entire land revenue after the expiration of the thirty‑year period.

In this case the Court considered the expiry of a thirty‑year period that ended in the financial year 1955‑56 and the resulting dispute over land revenue. The matter arose as Civil Appeals Nos. 254, 255 and 256 of 1958, which were filed by special leave from the judgments and orders dated 14 May 1956 and 15 June 1956 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Applications Nos. 1270, 1373 and 1374 of 1956. The original proceedings were Petitions Nos. 55 and 66 of 1957, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights. Counsel for the appellants and petitioners were appointed, and the respondents were represented by senior counsel, including the Solicitor‑General of India. The judgment was delivered on 16 December 1958 by Justice Subba Rao. The three appeals sought special leave to challenge the High Court’s dismissal of writ petitions that demanded prohibition against the respondents for recovering land revenue from the appellants at an increased rate for the year 1955‑56; the petitioners in two of the writs also asked for the same relief. Because all the appeals and writ petitions raised a common question of law, the Court heard them together. The material facts of Civil Appeal No. 254 of 1958 can be summarised as follows: the appellant was a taluqdar who owned several taluqdar villages located in Dholka Taluka of Ahmedabad District. In the financial year 1922‑23 a revision settlement of land revenue was made for the lands in that taluka, including the taluqdar villages, fixing the total revenue payable at Rs 62,627‑2‑6. In the year 1925‑26, exercising the powers granted by section 22 of the Gujarat Taluqdars Act, 1888 (Bombay Act VI of 1888), the Government of Bombay declared a jama of Rs 32,643‑3‑0 to be payable by the appellant for those villages, and the declaration was to remain effective for thirty years from 1925‑26. Subsequently, in 1949 the Bombay Legislature enacted the Bombay Taluqdari Abolition Act, which came into force about 15 August 1950. Section 3 of that Act abolished taluqdar tenure and extinguished all incidents attaching to any land within the taluqdar estate, thereby converting the appellant into an occupant of the lands. After the thirty‑year period ended, the talatis of the respective villages demanded that the appellant pay the full land‑revenue assessment for the lands comprising those villages. The appellant contended that his liability was limited to the jama declared by the Government in 1925‑26 and therefore filed a writ petition seeking to restrain the respondents from imposing the higher revenue assessment.

In the High Court of Bombay the appellant sought the relief described in a writ petition. The appellant who was the respondent in Civil Appeal No 255 of 1958 was a taluqdar who owned several taluqdari villages situated in Dholka and Dhandhulka Talukas of Ahmedabad District. The facts that arose in this appeal were essentially the same as those that had been presented in Civil Appeal No 254 of 1958, the only difference being that the jama that the Government had ascertained and declared payable by the appellant for the period 1925‑26 amounted to approximately Rs 5,734, whereas the amount fixed in the revenue settlement was Rs 14,452‑11‑0. In Civil Appeal No 256 of 1958 the appellant was also a taluqdar who owned several villages in Dholka Taluka of Ahmedabad District; again the facts were similar to the earlier two appeals, but in this case the Government had fixed the jama at Rs 21,877 in contrast to a settlement amount of Rs 44,551. Writ Petition No 66 of 1957, which had been filed by the appellant in Civil Appeal No 254 of 1958, concerned a demand for enhanced revenue in respect of his Sanad estate. The facts in that petition mirrored those in the appeals, the only variation being that the Government had ascertained and declared a jama of Rs 20,886 while the settlement amount was Rs 48,247‑13‑0; the demand related to the revenue year 1956‑57. Writ Petition No 18 of 1957 was filed by Thakur Vikramsinhji Manharsinhji of Gumph Estate, Ahmedabad District, Bombay State, who was a taluqdar of the Gumph Estate comprising seven taluqdari villages. The facts in this petition were likewise comparable to those in the appeals, the Government having fixed a jama of Rs 16,499‑4‑0 whereas the assessment was set at Rs 30,223‑12‑0, and the demand pertained to the year 1955‑56. For convenience, the parties who were appellants in the three civil appeals and the petitioners in the writ petitions will collectively be referred to as the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants, Mr A V Viswanatha Sastri, argued that the jama that had been ascertained and declared for a period of thirty years was the amount fixed in the revenue settlement, and that under section 117R of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, the appellants were liable to pay only that assessment until a re‑settlement took place, meaning that the respondents could not demand a higher amount than that declared payable in 1925‑26. The learned Solicitor General opposed this contentions, maintaining that the Gujarat Taluqdars’ Act drew a clear distinction between a revenue settlement and the ascertainment and declaration of the jama, and that after the passage of the Abolition Act the jama was payable only until the expiry of the thirty‑year period, after which the former taluqdar, now merely an occupant, became liable to pay the entire land‑revenue assessment that had already been fixed for the land.

In this matter, the Court observed that the central issue was whether the whole land‑revenue assessment that had already been fixed for the lands in question should continue to be payable. The Court then framed the dispute as a clash between two rival contentions: one asserting that the assessment should remain in force, and the other claiming that the assessment should cease after a specified period. To resolve which contention must prevail, the Court stated that it was necessary to examine the relevant statutory provisions contained in the Gujarat Taluqdars Act, the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, and the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Accordingly, the Court proceeded to read the pertinent sections of the two Acts. The Gujarat Taluqdars Act, 1888 provides, inter alia, that the term “jama” means land revenue payable by a taluqdar to the Provincial Government. Section 2(1) of that Act allows for certain provisions unless something is repugnant in the subject or context, followed by placeholders for clauses (a), (b) and (c). Section 4 authorises the Provincial Government, whenever it may seem expedient, to direct a revenue survey or a revised revenue survey of any taluqdari estate under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, as applicable to such survey. Section 5 stipulates that the settlement register prepared by the Survey Officer under section 108 of the Code, on the occasion of any such survey, shall, unless the Provincial Government otherwise directs, contain, in place of the particulars specified in that section, the following particulars: the area and the assessment of each survey number. Section 22(1) explains that if a taluqdar’s estate, or any part of it, is not wholly or partially exempt from land‑revenue and its liability to payment of land‑revenue is not subject to special conditions or restrictions, the jama payable to Government in respect of such estate shall, where a survey‑settlement has been extended to it, be the aggregate of the survey‑assessments of the lands composing the estate or portion thereof, reduced by any deduction that the Government may direct in each case. Section 22(2) further provides that the Governor in Council may declare the amount of jama so ascertained to be fixed for any term not exceeding thirty years.

The Court then turned to the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, LXII of 1949. Section 3 of that Act declares that, with effect from the date on which the Act comes into force, the taluqdari tenure shall, wherever it prevails, be deemed to have been abolished; and, except as expressly provided by the Act, all incidents of that tenure attaching to any land comprised in a taluqdari estate shall be deemed to have been extinguished. Section 4 provides that all revenue surveys or revised revenue surveys of taluqdari estates directed by the State Government under section 4 of the Taluqdars Act and all settlements made thereunder shall be deemed to have been made under Chapters VIII and VIII‑A of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, and that the settlement registers and other records prepared of such surveys shall be deemed to have been prepared under the corresponding provisions of the Code. Section 5(1), subject to the provisions of sub‑section (2), states that all taluqdari lands are and shall be liable to the payment of land revenue in accordance with the provisions of the Code and the rules made thereunder, and that a taluqdar holding any taluqdari land or a cadet of a taluqdar’s family holding any such land hereditarily for the purpose of maintenance, immediately before the coming into force of this Act, shall be deemed to be an occupant within the meaning of the Code or any other law then in force.

In the judgment, the Court explained that a person who became an “occupant” under the definition contained in the Code or under any other law then in force was treated as the holder of the land for revenue purposes. The Court further clarified that nothing in sub‑section (1) was intended to affect the right of any person to pay the land revenue, known as jama, only under an agreement or settlement that had been recognised under section 23 of the Taluqdars’ Act or under a declaration made pursuant to section 22 of that Act, provided that such agreement, settlement or declaration continued to be effective under the provisions of the new legislation. The Court then addressed the repeal provisions, stating that the enactments listed in Schedule II were repealed, but that the repeal would not be deemed to affect any declaration made, any agreement or settlement recognised, any partition confirmed, or any management of a taluqdari estate that had been assumed under the repealed enactments. Moreover, any proceedings that had been initiated before the date of repeal concerning such partitions or management were to be continued and decided as if the new Act had never been enacted.

The Court proceeded to summarise the legal framework that emerged from those provisions. The Taluqdars’ Act had been enacted to provide special rules for the revenue administration of estates owned by certain superior land‑holders in the districts of Ahmedabad, Kaira, Broach and the Panch Mahals. Under section 4 of that Act, the Governor‑in‑Council could order a revenue survey or a revised revenue survey of any taluqdari estate in accordance with the Bombay Land Revenue Code. For each surveyed estate, the survey was to be carried out pursuant to section 108 of the Code, and the Settlement Officer was required to prepare a “Settlement Register” containing the particulars specified in section 5 of the Taluqdars’ Act, replacing the particulars that would otherwise be required under section 108 of the Code. Section 22 of the Taluqdars’ Act stipulated that the jama payable by a taluqdar would be the total of the survey assessments of the lands comprising the estate, or the portion thereof, after deducting any amount that the Government might direct in each case. Section 23 gave the Governor‑in‑Council the authority to declare that the ascertained jama would be fixed for a term not exceeding thirty years. In 1949, the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act abolished the taluqdari tenure. By virtue of section 5 of that Abolition Act, the former taluqdars were deemed “occupants” within the meaning of the Code, meaning they were regarded as holders in actual possession of unalienated lands other than the tenants, and consequently all taluqdari lands became liable to pay land revenue according to the Code and its rules. Sub‑section 2 of section 5 expressly saved the right of any person to continue paying jama only under an agreement or settlement recognised under section 23 or a declaration made under section 22 of the Taluqdars’ Act, as long as that agreement, settlement or declaration remained in force. In short, the combined effect of these provisions was that the taluqdari tenure was extinguished and the former taluqdars were transformed into occupants liable to pay land revenue under the Code, subject only to any existing agreements, settlements or declarations that continued to operate.

The Court observed that the taluqdar, by operation of the provisions of the Code, became an occupant who was liable to pay land revenue according to the Code. In the absence of any other statutory provision indicating a contrary intention, the Court noted that the summary of the statutory scheme made it clear that the appellants would be required to pay land revenue under the Code after the period fixed in the declaration expired, that is, from the fiscal year 1955‑1956 onward. Counsel for the appellants argued that, on the basis of section 117R of the Code, the declaration made by the Governor in Council fixing the amount of jama for a period of thirty years would continue to remain in force even after that period expired until a revision settlement was effected, and that the saving clause therefore barred the Government from demanding any amount of revenue higher than the jama that had been ascertained and fixed in the declaration until the date a revised settlement was made. Section 117R of the Code reads: “All settlements of land revenue heretofore made and introduced and in force at the date of the commencement of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1939, shall be deemed to have been made and introduced in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter and shall, notwithstanding anything contained in section 117E, be deemed to continue to remain in force until the introduction of a revision settlement.” The Court explained that if the Governor’s declaration constitutes a settlement of land revenue within the meaning of that provision, it would indeed remain operative until a revision settlement is introduced. Consequently, it became necessary to determine the meaning of the expression “settlement of land revenue” as used in the section. The Court turned to the definition contained in section 117C(1), which defines a settlement as the result of the operations conducted in a zone for the purpose of arriving at a land‑revenue assessment. The scope of those operations is laid down in Chapter VIII‑A, which prescribes the successive steps to be followed by the authorities concerned in fixing the land revenue. Under section 117D the Government may at any time direct a settlement of the land revenue of any land, whether or not a revenue survey under section 95 has been made, and may also direct a revised settlement of the land revenue of such lands. A settlement, once made, remains effective for a period of thirty years unless the State Government directs a shorter period. In cases where a revised settlement has not been effected for any reason, the Government is empowered to extend the term of the settlement for such period as it thinks fit. The assessment of land revenue is determined by dividing the lands to be settled into different groups and fixing a standard rate for each group. Such groups are ordinarily formed on considerations that include the physical configuration of the land, climate, rainfall, price and yield of the principal crop and other relevant factors. By delineating these steps, the Court clarified the statutory framework that governs the continuity and modification of land‑revenue settlements.

The price and yield of the principal crop and other relevant considerations formed part of the factors used to determine land revenue. The revenue for each individual survey number and its sub‑divisions was to be calculated on the basis of the land’s classification and its assessed value, as prescribed by the settlement rules. The Settlement Officer, who was entrusted with the responsibility of carrying out the settlement, followed the prescribed procedure and fixed a standard rate for every class of land within each group after examining the relevant factors. A hierarchy of tribunals was created so that any person who was aggrieved could appeal the settlement decision. Finally, the State Government issued orders either approving the standard rates or varying them. After the State Government’s orders were passed and the notice of those orders was given in the manner prescribed, the settlement was deemed to have been introduced, and land revenue according to that settlement was levied from the date specified by the State Government. From this summary of the land‑revenue settlement scheme it was clear that revenue was fixed for each parcel of land according to the group to which the parcel belonged. All settlements of land revenue that had been made before the Bombay Land Revenue (Amendment) Code, 1939, were to remain in force until a revised settlement was introduced. Part II of the Taluqdars’ Act provided for survey and settlement. Under section 4 of that Act the Governor‑in‑Council could direct a revenue survey of a taluqdari estate under the provisions of the Code. The settlement register prepared under the Code was required to contain the particulars mentioned in section 5, such as the area and the assessment of each survey number. Consequently, a settlement was made with respect to the taluqdari estates and settlement registers were prepared that fixed the assessment of each survey number. That settlement qualified as a settlement of land revenue within the meaning of section 117R of the Code and continued in force until a resettlement was effected.

Part IV of the Taluqdars’ Act dealt with revenue administration. Section 22 stipulated that where a survey‑settlement had been extended to a taluqdari estate, the jama payable by the taluqdar to the Government in respect of that estate should be the aggregate of the survey assessments of the lands forming the estate, less any deduction that the Government might direct in each case. Under sub‑section (2) of section 22 the Governor‑in‑Council could declare the amount of jama so ascertained to be fixed for any term not exceeding thirty years. Section 23 provided that nothing in the Act was deemed to affect the validity of any agreement previously 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 Government for a term of years and still in force. Thus, sections 22 and 23 dealt with the arrangements that were entered into or could be entered into with the Governor‑in‑Council concerning the jama payable by the taluqdars.

In this case the Court examined the provisions relating to the jama payable by the taluqdars. Section 23 of the Taluqdars’ Act preserved earlier agreements or settlements concerning the jama. Section 22 empowered the Government to determine the amount of jama by considering the total of the survey assessments of the lands involved and permitted the Government to fix that amount for a period not exceeding thirty years. The declaration made under section 22 or the agreement or settlement of jama referred to in section 23(1) could be described in general terms as a settlement between the Government and a taluqdar; however, the Court held that such a settlement was not a settlement of land‑revenue within the meaning of section 117R of the Code. Settlement of revenue, the Court explained, resulted from procedures carried out on various classes of land as prescribed by Chapter VIII‑A of the Code or from settlements made under pre‑existing laws. Determining the jama lay beyond the scope of Chapter VIII‑A, although the rates fixed in those settlements were used by the Government as a basis for calculating the jama due from a taluqdar. The Court emphasized that the jama payable by a taluqdar was a distinct concept from the revenue assessment of the land that formed the taluqdari estate, and therefore the two could not be equated.

Section 17 of the Abolition Act repealed the Taluqdars’ Act but expressly provided that such repeal would not affect any declaration or any agreement or settlement that had been recognized with respect to the taluqdari estates. Moreover, section 5(2)(b) of the Abolition Act specifically saved any agreement or settlement saved under section 23 or any declaration made under section 22 from the operation of the Act for as long as that agreement, settlement or declaration remained in force. Consequently, the Court found it clear that a declaration made under the Taluqdars’ Act continued to benefit the taluqdars despite the repeal of that Act, so long as the declaration remained effective. At the time the Abolition Act came into force, the period fixed in the declaration relevant to the present appeals—thirty years—had not yet expired; therefore the declaration made by the Government under the Taluqdars’ Act remained operative until the fiscal year 1955‑56.

When the thirty‑year period subsequently ended, the Court held that the appellants became liable to pay the full land‑revenue assessed in the settlement register. The Court explained that the overall scheme of the Abolition Act was to convert the taluqdars into occupants, thereby rendering them liable to pay land‑revenue according to the provisions of the Land Revenue Code. Had subsection (2) not been inserted into section 5, the taluqdars would have been required to pay land‑revenue under the Code regardless of any earlier declaration or agreement concerning the jama. Sub‑section (2) was therefore enacted solely to preserve the concession for the duration of the fixed period. On this basis, the Court concluded that the declaration made by the Governor in Council in 1925‑26 had expired in 1955‑56.

In this case, the Court observed that from the financial year 1955‑56 the appellants were required to pay the full amount of land revenue that was established in the settlement registers. Accordingly, the Court determined that the liability of the appellants to pay the entire assessed revenue arose at that point in time. As a consequence of that finding, the Court ordered that every appeal and every writ petition that had been filed in this matter be dismissed. The dismissal was accompanied by an order that the costs of the proceedings be awarded against the appellants. The Court further specified that the State of Bombay and the Collector of Ahmedabad, who were the respondents in these proceedings, each received a single award of hearing costs, meaning that they were each entitled to one set of costs for the hearing. In sum, the Court concluded that all of the petitions that had been presented for relief were dismissed, and the costs were allocated as described, thereby bringing the matter to an end.