KUMAR SHREE DIGBIJAYSINHJI versus NANJISAVDAS & ORS.

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 405 · Decided: 23-07-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. BACHAWAT · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
E 
F 
·G 
H 
KUMAR SHREE DIGBIJAYSINHJI 
V. 
NANJISA VDAS & ORS. 
July 23, 1968 
[R. S. BACHAWAT and K. S. HEGDE, JJ.J 
Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, 1951 (Act 25 of 1951). 18, 19--
Grant of land by former ruler of 1nerged State recognised by Government 
of India on condition that grantee would not be entitled ilo evict tenants-
Such condition whether a right or privilege of the tenant 
within 
the 
meaning of s. 18-Grantee dectared by State Government notification to 
be a Girasdar subject to s. l S-Such Girasdar whether can file application 
under s. 19 for allotment of land for self-eultivation after eviction 
of 
tenants. 
In 1947 the Ruler of Virpur State in Saurashtra granted certain agri-
cultural lands to the appellant. 
Later these lands were exchanged for 
others. In 1948 the administration of Virpur State was assumed by the 
United State of Saurashtra. The Saurashtra Government questioned the 
grant but the Government of India at a conference with the Ruler recog-
nised it as having been lawfully made to the appellant, with the condition 
that he would not evict the tenants from the lands. The arrangement was 
set out in a letter dated November 2, 1949 from the Political Department 
Of the Government of India to the Rev·~nue Department, United State of 
Saurashtra. 
Though the appellant was not a patty to the arrangement 
he was aware of and accepted the arrangem·ent and the conditions upon 
which his grant was confirmed by the Government of India. 
The 
Saurashtra Land Reforms Act came into effect on September l, 1951. 
On January 29, 1954 the Government of Saurashtra issued a notification 
under s. J 5 (2) of the Act declaring the appellant tr> be a Girasdar for 
purposes of th~ Act subject to the· provisions of s. 18 thereof, and this 
was later by ano,~her notification, clarified to mean that: he was a Girasdar 
subject to the condition imposed by the Government at the time of his 
recognition, that. he could not evict the tenants. 
In the meantime the 
appellant made an application to the Mamlatdar for an allotment of land 
for personal cultivation under s. 19 of the Aot. 
This application was 
allowed by the Mamlatdar but the Revenue Tribunal in revision held 
that the application under s. 19 was not maintainable. 
The appellant's 
petition before the High Court under s. 227 of the Act was dismissed on 
the grounds that (i) the conditions incorporated in the letter of November 
2, 1949 having been accepted by the appellant enured for the benefit of 
the tenants under s. 18 of the Act; (ii) the rights of the Girasdar were 
restricted by the notification under s. 2(15) of the Act declaring him 
to be a Girasdar and the appellant was bound by 
those 
restrictions. 
Again•! the High Court's judgment the appellant came to this Court. 
HELD : (i) Had the Government of India annuled the grant made 
to the appellant the annulment would have been an Act of State 
and 
could not be quesitioned before the Municipal Tribunals. 
Instead of 
annulling the grant the government elected to confirm it subject to the 
conditions incorporated in the letter dated 
November 
2, 
1949. 
The 
appellant accepted the· grant subject to those conditions and was bound 
by them. [408 FJ 
State of Saurashtra v. Jamadar Mohamad Abdulla, [1962] 3 S.C.R. 
970. referred to. 
406 
SUPRBIE COURT REi>ORTS 
[1969] 
(ii) The conditions incorporated in the l<>ttcr dated November 2, 1949 
A 
were mtendc'd for the benefit of !he tenant. The tenants could claim the 
benefit_ of the condition that the appellant could not evict them. 
The 
cond1tton was annexed. t_o the grant to the appellant. 
The right or pri-
vll.e~e of the tenant ans1ryg out of this condition was a right or privilege 
ans1ug out of a granl y,·nhin the meaning of s. 
18. 1·he 
expression 
·grant' in s. 18 is, wide enough to take within its sweep a grant by the 
Government to the Girasdar and is not limited to a grant by the Girasdar 
to the tenant. (409 G-H] 
B 
(iii)_ On the strength of the order of allotment of land for personal 
cult1vat1on under s. 20(2) the Girasdar is entitled to evict the tenants 
from the land allolled to him. 
When the Girasdar applies under s. 19 
for allotment of land for pc-rsonal cultivation, he seeks to evict the tenant 
from the land. 
Therefore when the apP"llant filed his application under 
s. 19 he sought an order which would enable him lo evict the tenants in 
contravc.ntion of the condition of his grant that he would not evict tho 
C 

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