BHAT KALIDAS SHAMJI (DEAD) BY L.RS. & ORS. versus P.J. PATHAK & ORS.

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 78 · Decided: 08-09-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.H. KANIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
lB 
c 
BHAT KALIDAS SHAMJI (DEAD) BY L.RS. & ORS. 
v. 
P.J. PATHAK & ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 8, 1989 
[M.H. KANIA AND T.K. THOMMEN, JJ.] 
Saurashtra Land Reforms Act 1951/Saurashtra Land Reforms 
Rules 1951-Sections 2(12), 4, 5, 21, 22, 23 and 24/Rule 21-Giras-
dar-Allotment of land-Lesser hardship being caused to tenant-
Taking of judicial notice. 
The appeallants are the tenants of certain intermediary landlords 
known as Girasdars. Respondents Nos. 4-5 are the legal heirs of certain 
Girasdars from whom some of the appellants held lands on lease. 
Respondent No. 9 is a Girasdar who is represented by the. Assistant 
Custodian Evacuee Property. The other respondents, being statutory 
D authorities are formal parties. The dispute between the parties relate to 
the mode of allotment to the Girasdars which has arisen in the following 
circumstances. 
After the coming into force of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act 
1951, the respondents Girasdars, as required by the Act filled in Form l 
E showing therein the cultivable land in the estate as 1353.34 acres. The 
family of the Girasdars was treated as an' A' class Girasdar. 
The Mahalkari Kutiana by his decision dated June 25, 1959 held 
that the entire area comprising cultivable land formed part of the joint 
and undivided estate of all the Girasdars and on that basis he allotted to 
p 
them three economic units of land amounting to 60 acres. The 
Girasdars preferred an appeal against the said decision and in that 
appeal, the Deputy Collector, Porbander, Respondent No. 2, modified 
the allotment made by Mahalkari. He took the view.that some of these 
G irasdars had separate or swang lands and thus entitled to separate 
allotments from swang lands, out oftheir swang estate. 
G 
A revision application was preferred before the Gujarat Revenue 
Tribunal against the decision of the Deputy Collector. The Tribunal 
agreed in principle with the Deputy Collector that the Girasdars were 
entitled to separate allotment both from the estate held jointly by them 
and also to separate allotments from the fatates separately by them. 
H The Tribunal accordingly held that the Girasdars were entitled to three 
78 
B.K. SHAMJI v. P.J. PATHAK 
79 
economic units out of the aforesaid cultivable lauds jointly held by them 
and some of them were entitled to separate allotments out of the lands 
separatly held by them but included in the aforesaid area of 1353.34 
acres. 
The tenants thereupon challenged the decision of the Tribunal 
before the High Court by means of a writ petition. The High Court held 
that in respect of the joint or "Majmu" estate of the concerned 
Girasdars, they were liable to be treated as one unit and entitled to 
allotment as an 'A' class·Giriisilars and were thus entitled jointly to 
three economic holdings which came to 60 acres. The High Court 
affirmed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ali Khokhar, 
Girasdars who had handed over 15 acres of land of the joint estate and 
directed that on the basis of joint holding, the Girasdars were entitled to 
the balance area of 45 acres. It also upheld the decision of the Tribunal 
that some of the Girasdars were entitled to separate allotments as 'C' 
class Girasdars with respect to their separate holdings. Thus the High 
Conrt treated the total holding of 1353.34 acres as partly joint and the 
remaining part comprised separate holdings of some of the Girasdars. 
The appellants-tenants have appealed to this Court after obtain-
ing special leave. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: Judicial !!otice can be taken that much lesser hardship 
would be caused to a tenant whose land holding was substantially in 
excess of the economic holding if a part of that land were taken for 
allotment to the Gir"!'dars than to a tenant whose excess holding was 
only marginal if a part of his land is taken for such allotment. [85F J 
The Revenue Tribunal in deciding as to whose excess land 'should 
be banded over b_y the tenants bas proceeded on a just and equitable 
basis that i~ should touch only such tenants whose land substantially 
exceeds the economic holding, and smaller tenants should not be asked 
to snrrender any part of their holdings. [SSE I 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 8 to 
lOof 1972. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15. l.1970 of the Gujarat 
High Court in Special Civil Application Nos. 305, 368, 526, 384 and 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
495 of 1962. 
H 
80 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] Supp. l s.C.R. 
A 

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