BHAGWANTRAO versus VISHWASRAO AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1960] 2 S.C.R. 710 · Decided: 12-01-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

r960 
January I:J 
710 
SUPREME COUHT REPORTS [1960(2)] 
BHAGWANTRAO 
v. 
VISHW ASRAO AND ANOTHER 
(S. K. DAS, and A. K. SARKAR, JJ). 
Grant-Rcsnmption--Patelki huq inam-True nature and 
character of-Inam RHles, r859-Patel and Patwaris Law, r900-
Berar Land Revenue Code, r928, s. r90. 
The question for decision in the appeal was the right of the 
revenue authorities of the State Govern1nent concerned, to 
resume certain lands known as 'patelki huq inam,' which lay in 
the Jagir village of Nawabag situate in the ceded area of Berar. 
The lands were granted by the then so'f'reign authority by way 
of remuneration or emoluments for services to be rendered by the 
pa tel; the grant was of ancient origin and was recognised as a 
'service in am' by the British Government. In the village of 
Nawabag there were four families of patels, who went by the 
surnames of Dongre, I<okade, Raut and Ingle, the members of 
which held the patel's office in rotation of ten years. There was 
a partition in the Rokade family as result of which the • patelki 
inam' lands were divided, and the lands in suit were allotted 
to the share of the appellant who never held the patel's office. 
During an enquiry for the preparation of the record of rights of 
the said Jagir village, it was held that the appellant was not 
entitled to hold the • patelki inam, lands which were given as 
emoluments for service to the working pate!, and the Financial 
Commissioner finally held that the person actually working as 
pate! was entitled to receive the full emoluments of his office, 
and confirmed the order that the lands in possession of the 
appellant should be resumed and regranted to the working pate!, 
viz., the respondent No. r. 
On the question of the true nature of the patelki huq inam, 
two points arose: 
(r) was it a grant by way of remuntlration 
or emoluments of the patel's office by the use of the land, or 
(2) was it a grant of land to the patelki family burdened with 
service and so long as the service \~.ras performed by any member 
of the family, the lands were joint family lands subject to parti-
tion etc. among the members of the family. 
Held, that the 'patelki inam' in this case was in its origin 
a grant by way of remuneration for patelki service by the 
. sovereign authority; it was separate from and independent of 
the Jagir of Nawabag though the land lay within the Jagir vil-
lage. In its true character the ' patelki inam' was land given 
in lieu of wages or emoluments for the office of pate!; it could 
not be freely alienated and the Government could resume the 
land. 
Held, further, that where one of two or more patels of the 
village held office in turn by rotation, that did not mean that 
• • 
-
-
' ' 
-
-
-
.. 
S.O.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
711 
the pate! ceases to be a pate! when his turn was over; he conti-
nued to be a pate! and to enjoy his emoluments of office. 
Held, also, that there was nothing in the lnam Rules, 1859, 
on the basis of which a person could claim as of right that he 
had a share in the ' patelki inam' lands as a member of the 
patel's family irrespective of whether he performed the service 
or not. A member of the patel's family was not entitled as of 
right to a share in the emoluments of the patel's office and 
Government had every right to resume 'patelki inam' lands 
and regrant them to the officiator in accordance with the provi-
sions of the Patel and Patwaris Law, 1900, and s. 190 of the 
Berar Land Revenue Code, 1928. 
Held, also, that on the finding that the lands were given by 
way of emoluments for the patel's office, no question of title by 
adverse possession arose against the Government in the circum-
stances of the case. 
Venkata J agannadha v. Veerabhadrayya, (1921) L.R. I.A. 224, 
referred to. 
Krishnarao v. Nilkantha and Others, A.LR. (1922) Nag. 52, 
Mir Subhan Ali v. Imami Begum, (1925) 21 Na:g. L. Reports n7, 
Lakhamgouda Basavaprabhu Sardesai v. Baswantrao and Others, 
A.I.R. (1931) P.C. 157, Jaiwantrao and Another v. Sahebrao, (1933) 
29 Nag. L. Reports 210 and Raje Shrinivasrao v. Raje Vinayakrao, 
I.L.R. [1949] Nag. l discussed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal No, 
208of1955. 
Appeal from the judgment . and decree dated 
November 27, 1951, of the former Nagpur High Court, 
in Sec.ond Appeal No. 169 of 1947, arising out of the 
judgment and decree dated February 3, 1947, of the 
First Additional District Judge, Amraoti in Civil 
Appeal No. 85-A of 1946, against the judg

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.