MAHARANA SHRI JAYAVANTSINHJI, RANMALSINHJI versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND OTHERS

Citation: [1959] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 911 · Decided: 16-12-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS, NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI, BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA, K. SUBBA RAO, K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
911 
MAHARAN A SHRI J AYA V ANTSINHJI, 
RANMALSINHJI 
v. 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND OTHERS 
(and connected petition) 
(S. R. DAS, c. J., N. H. BHAGWATI, B. P. SINHA, 
K. SuBBA RAO and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) 
'l'aluqdari Tenure, Abolition of-Liability of erstwhile Taluqdar 
to pay tand revenue assessment-Jama, if distinct from such assess-
meni~Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, r949 (Bom. LXI 
of ry49), s. 5(2)-Gujrat Taluqdars Act, r888 (Bom. VI of r888), 
ss. 22, 23;._Bombay Land Revenue Code, r879 (Bom. V of r879), 
s. ri7R. 
The appellants were Taluqdars owning taluqdari villages in 
District Ahmedabad, State of Bombay. In 1922-23 there was a 
revision settlement of land revenue and the aggregate sum of 
land revenue payable by each taluqdari estate was fixed. 
In 
1925-26, in exercise o"f the powers conferred by s. 22 of the 
Gujrat Taluqdars Act, 1888 (Born. VI of 1888), the Government 
of Bombay ascertained and declared the jama payable by each 
taluq which was much less than the amount of land revenue 
and the said declaration was to remain in force for thirty years. 
With the passing in 1949 of the Bombay Ta\uqdari Abolition 
Act, 1949• the taluqdari estates of the appellants were abolished 
and they became occupants of the lands and, after the expiry of 
the thirty years, were called upon to pay the full land revenue 
assessment in respect of the lands. It was contended on behalf 
of the appellants that by reason of s. n7R of the Bombay Land 
Revenue Code, 1879, the declaration made by the Governor in 
council fixing the amount of jama for a period of thirty years 
would continue to be in force even after the expiry of that 
period till a revision settlement was made and the Government 
was precluded from demanding the higher amount of revenue 
till then. 
Held, that the contention must fail. 
The jama payable by the · Taluqdars under s. 22 of the 
Gujrat Taluqdars Act, 1888, was distinct from the revenue 
assessment of land comprised in the taluqdari estate and they 
could not be equated. The declaration under s. 22 or the fixation 
of the jama under s. 23(1) of the Act was in the nature of a 
settlement entered into between the Government on the one 
hand and the Taluqdar on the other but that was no settlement 
of land revenue within the meaning of s. n7R of the Bombay 
Land Revenue Code, 1879. 
As s. 5(2) (b) of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act. 
1949, expressly saved the settlement made under s. 23 and the 
December 16. 
M aharana Shri 
J a'yava11tsinhj' i, 
Rannialsinhji 
v. 
The State of 
Bo1nbay 
and Others 
Subba Rao J. 
912 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. 
declaration under s. 22 of the Gujrat Taluqdars Act, the appel-
lants were liable to pay the entire land revenue after the expiry 
of 30 years, i.e., from the year 1955-56. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 
.254 to 256.of 1958. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and 
orders dated May 14, 1956, and June 15, 1956, of the 
Bombay High Courtjn Special Civil Applications Nos. 
1270, 1373 and 1374 of 1956. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: 
Petitions Nos. 18 and 66 
of 1957. 
Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of 
India for the enforcement of fundamental rights. 
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and S. S. Shukla, for the 
appellants and the petitioners. 
0. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, H. J, 
Umrigar and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents. 
1958. December 16. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
SuBBA RAo, J.-These are three appeals by Special 
Leave from the judgment of the High Court of Judi-
cature at Bombay dismissing the petitions filed by 
the appellants for Writs in the nature of Prohibition 
restraining the respondents from realising from the 
appellants land revenue in respect of their estates at 
an enhanced rate for the year . 1955-56. The peti-
tioners in the two petitions also asked for similar 
relief against the respondents. The appeals as well 
as the Writ Petitions were heard together, as they 
raised a common question of law. 
The material facts in Civil Appeal No. 254 of 1958 
may be briefly stated : The appellant was a taluqdar 
owning several taluqdari villages situate in the 
Dholka Taluka of Ahmedabad District. In the year 
1922-23 there was a revision settlement of land 
revenue of the lands situa.te in the said taluka includ-
ing the said taluqdari villages. Under that settlement 
the aggregate of the land revenue payable in respect 
of the lan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.