LexGANGAHARRAO NARAYANRAO MAJUMDAR versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND ANOTHER (WITH CONNECTED APPEALS)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'
,-
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
943
to 5, the amount of the penalty of Rs. 25,000 should
proportionately be reduced. There is justification
for this contention. But we cannot reduce the amount,
as under s. 183 of the Sea. Customs Act ,the amount
has to be fixed by the concerned officer as he thinks
fit. But as the basis of the order partially disappears,
we give liberty to the appellant to apply to the cus-
toms authorities for giving him an option to redeem
the confiscated goods on payment of a. lesser amount,
having regard to the changed circumstances.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the
order of the Collector of Central Excise is accordingly
modified in terms of·the finding given by us.
As the
parties succeeded and failed in part, they are directed
to bear their own costs.
Appeal partly allowed.
A mba Lal
v.
'The L111inn o.f
India 6- Others
Subba Rao ].
GANGADHARRAO NARAYANRAO MAJUMDAR
'9 60
V.
October .1·
THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND ANOTHER
(WITH CONNECTED APPEALS)
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., J. L. KAPUR,
P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAO and
K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.)
Inams-Abolition of Personal Inams-Constitutional validity
of Enactment-" Estate·· '"Right in an estate", meaning of-Bom-
bay Personal Inams Abolition Act, z952 (Bom. 42 of z953), ss. 4, 5,
7, z7-Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (Bom. 5 of 1879), s. 3(5)
-Constitution of India, Arts. 31, 3I-A.
The appellants held personal inams which were governed
by Bombay Acts Nos. II and VII of 1863 by virtue of which
they held their lands on payment of land revenue . which was
less than the full assessment. After the coming into force of
the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1952, the appellants
who were affected by it challenged the validity of the Act on
the grounds, inter alia, (1) that the property which had been
dealt with under the Act was not an estate.inasmuch as what
ss. 4 and 5 exting11ished was the right of the inamdar to appro-
priate to himself the difference between the full assessment and
(;1111;:11d/ian ao
.\'(11 a.1·a10-an
J.la,1!01;da,
v.
State of l''J11:bay
!H4
SUPHK\IE COCRT REPORTS
[1961]
lhc quit rent and this \\;is not an cstat(' \vithin the n~(·aning of
Art. .11-A of the Con<t1tution of India, ancl (2) that no compen-
sation had been provided in the Act for taking away the pro-
puty of the app.,IJants.
Held: (1) that the right of the inamdar to appropriate to
himself lhc difference br·t\\·er·n th1• full a~sessrnent anc: the quit
rent \\'as a right in rcs~iect of land revt"nue and \i,as tlu·refnre a
right in an estate by VJTtJJc of th" <lcfmition in Art. 31-A(2)(b).
Such a right also fell under s. 3(5) ,,f the Bombay Land Rcve-
r.11c Code, 187q, and as snct1 it
\\·a~ :-in f'State unrler Art. 31-A.
Acco1dingly, the Act wh"n it extinguished or modified the rights
of inamdars in inam estates was protcrtcd by Art. 31-A.
.
(2) that sub-s. (5) of s. 17 of the Act under which no
compensation was to he paid for tho loss to the inamclar of what
he used to get h<~r.au$C of the dificrenre hf:t\\·~rn the quit rent
and the full a~scssmi'nt, v.·;.is not in\'alid as 1\rt. 31-A saved the
Act from any attack under Art. 31 which was the only Article
providing for compensation.
CIVIL APPF.I.J.ATE
.JuRISDICTIO:>:
Civil Appeals
I\ os. 155 to 160 of 1956.
Appeals from the judgments an<l orders of the Bom-
bay High Court diited July 6, 1954, in Specin.l Civil
Application" Nos. 393, 395, 409 and 632 of l!l54;
July 19, 1954, in 8pecial Ci\'il Application :No. 1205 of
1954; and ,July 30, I 954, in Special CiYil Application
No. 1309 of 1954.
Purshottam Trikamdas, V. M. J,imayP, E. Udaya.
ralru1m and S. S. Shukla, for the itppellants.
H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-Gmeral of Indio,
N. P. Nathwani, [(, L. Hathi and R.H. Dhebar,
for
the respondents.
1960.
October 3.
The .Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
wa .. choo J.
\VANCHOO J.-These six appeals Pn a <:t>rtificatA
granted by the Bombay High Court rais<' a common
question as to the conRtitutionality of the Bombay
Personal Inams Abolition Act, No. XL!l of 1953,
(hereinafter callee! the Act.) and will be disposed of by
t.his judgment. The appellants hold personal inams
which are con.red by Bombay ActA Nos. IT and VII
of 1863. The Act was attacked on a number of
grounds in the High Court of which only two have
-,
I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
945
been urged before us, namely, (i) that the property
1960
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.