JAYANTRAO AMRATRAO PRADHAN versus PARTHASARTHY, COLLECTOR OF KAIRA DISTRICT AND OTHERS

Citation: [1986] 2 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 01-04-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

--
-
JAYANTRAO AMRATRAO PRADHAN 
v. 
PARTllASARTHY, COLIBCl'OR OF KAlRA 
DISTRICT AND OIBERS. 
APRIL 1, 1986 
[A.P. SEN AND D.P. MADON, JJ.] 
1 
Gujarat Patel Watans Abolition Act, 1961 -
Section 22 
and Resumption Rules 1908, Rule 4 -
Service inam lands -
•Jurisdiction of Collector to determine title of 
land -
, Liability incurred under an incident of a patel watan prior to 
+- April 1, 1963 - Necessity for. 
Much more than a century ago the appellant's ancestor 
Malharrao was granted 74 acres and 10 gunthas of lands by the 
Government, revenue assessment of which was Rs. 557, for 
founding a village called Malharpura. He was also appointed 
1 Patel 1 
of 
the 
newly 
founded 
village and 
in lieu of 
re1111neration therefor the lands were exempted from land 
revenue assessment. The annual re1111neration for 'patelship' 
would have been only Rs. 67, but the entire land revenue 
assessment 
was 
treated 
as 
the 
annual 
re1111neration 
of 
'patelship' resulting in Malharrao annually receiving Rs. 490 
more re1111neration in the shape of non-payment of land revenue 
assessment. 
, 
} 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
,. 
In or about 1901 lands admeasuring 31 acres and 18 
, gunthas were taken away by the Government from the lands 
!< granted to Malharrao, without paying any compensation. The 
F 
CoDlllissioner (N.D.) was directed to arrange a reasonable 
settlement for transfer of the lands on such terms as the 
patel was willing to accept. 
Proceedings under the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 were initiated which resulted in the 
Government granting certain lands to the 'patel'. 
'1 
3. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal sent a notice to the 
appellant's father to show cause why the land held by him 
should not be sold to the tenants as provided by the Bombay 
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 
1948. 
The appellant 
intimated the Collector that the lands held by him were a 
G 
service inam and the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act 1874 had 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1986] 2 S.C.R. 
been applied to them as they were given to him as re1111neration 
for services and, therefore, they were not liable to be 
proceeded against under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural 
Lands Act. 
-
4. The Collector by his order dated March 21, 1964, 
directed that plots of land admeasuring 6 acres and 28 gunthas 
held by the app·ellant were to be considered as Service Inam 
land and the remaining plots of lands were to be resumed and 
entered in the name of the State Government under Rule 4 of 
Resumption Rules, 1908. The lands which were held to be 
Service Inam lands were to be dealt with under the Gujarat • 
Patel Watan Abolition Act, 1961, with effect from the April 1, 
1963. 
5. 
An appeal was filed against this order of the 
Collector which was dismissed by the Special Secretary to the 
State Government. The appellant challenged the orders of the 
Collector and the Special Secretary under Article 226 of the 
Constitution, but the petition was dismissed. 
.. 
In the appeal to this Court on behalf of the appellant 
it was contended : (i) that the original grant was not a grant 
of the soil but of the revenue of the land and, therefore, the 
land was not liable to be resumed either under the Abolition 
Act or under the Resumption Rules 1908; (ii) that the lands 
granted by the Government to the appellant's predecessor under 
s. 32 of the Land Acquisition Act in lieu of the lands acquir-
ed could not be the subject-matter of watan and were, there-
• 
fore not liable to resumption; (iii) that as the Abolition Act 
~ 
came into force on April 1, 1963, the watan rights in the 
JI 
lands stood abolished on and from that day and, therefore, 
when the Collector passed his order dated March 21, 1964, the 
land had ceased to be watan lands and no lands were available 
for resumption and, therefore, no order under the Resumption 
Rules, 1908, could have been made on March 21, 1964 and (iv) 
that, the proceedings pending before the Collector on April 1, 
1963 were not of the nature mentioned in s. 22 of the Aboli-
tion Act and, therefore, they were not saved by the provisions 
of that section. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
' 
• 
..... 
J.A. PRADHAN v. COLLECTOR 
3 
HEU> : 1. Two things which are saved by s. 22 of the 
Gujarat Patel Watans Abolition Act, 
1961 are 
(i) an 
obligation or liability already incurred under an incident of 
a patel watan before the appointed day, that is, April 1, 1963 
and (ii) a proceeding or remedy in respect of such o

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