MAHISAGAR BHATHA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SOCIETY LTD. BORSAD ETC. ETC. versus THAKORE SHREE JAGDEVSINHJI RAMSINHJI (DEAD) BY L.RS. AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 317 · Decided: 02-09-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

MAHISAGAR BHATHA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTU~l!! 
A 
SOCIETY LTD. BORSAD ETC. ETC. 
v. 
THAKORE SHREE JAGDEVSINHJI RAMSINHJI (DEAD) BY 
L.RS. AND ANR. ETC. ETC. 
SEPTEMBER 2, 1992 
(KULDIP SINGH AND N.M. KASLIWAL, 11.) 
B 
Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949: Section 6. Ex-
Ru/er-Merger AgreemenH..and allotted as part of merger agreemenH..itiga-
C 
lion as to applicability of Taluqdari Act-State allotting land to C<Hlperative 
society of farmers during pendency of litigation-Society improving the land 
and making it cultivable-Held ruler as Taluqdar was entitled to full ownership 
of land-Land does not vest in State-lJut directions given not to disturb the 
settled farmers-Ru/er should be allotted other suitable land permissible under D 
Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Ac~ 1960. 
The respondent, ex·Rnler of Ometa State, filed a snit for delcaratlon 
that be. was the owner or snit properties, land 'A' Kothlakhad Bbatha and 
landed proerty plot 'B' Mabmedpura land, and for recovery or possession 
and for rendition of acconnts or Income. His case was that at the time or E 
merger of the State with Union or India be was granted five villages as 
private properties. As regards the State Govemment's case that the suit 
property land 'A! vested In the State under Section 6 or the Bombay 
Taluqdarl Tenure Abolition Act, 1949 It was contended for the respondent 
that the suit lauds were Bbatha lands beyond the purview or the Act. 
During the pendency of the litigation the State of GuJarat allotted the suit F 
lands to the appellant Co-operative Society or landless m8l'llinal farmers 
who Improved the land for cultivation. 
The Trial Court held that the respondent was the owner of the suit 
laud 'A' and accordingly granted a decree for delivering the possession of 
this land. It also held that be was entitled to accounts for this land but bis G 
suit as regards Mabmedpura Bbatha land 'B' was dismissed. 
Against the judgement of the Trial Court appeals were filed by the 
State of Gujarat, Co-operative Society and the respondent. The High 
Court dismissed the appeals of State and the Society except setting aside H 
317 
318 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS[1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A the decree for taking accounts. The decree passed by the Trial Court for 
declaraing ownership and possessions In respect ofland 'A' was confirmed 
but the respondent's appeal agianst the dismissed of bis claim for Mah· 
medpura Bhatha land was dismissed. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the State that 
B the land in question came to be vested in the State under Section 6 of the 
Bombay Taluqdari Act. On behalf of the appellant-society it was con-
tended that (1) the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960 was 
applicable to the land in question and the successors of the deceased 
respondent are bound to surrender the land in excess of the ceiling area; 
C 
(2) Instead of dispossessing the farmers who are cultivating the land for 
a long time, the State should allot some other land to the respondent in 
lieu of the land in question. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Coui;t, 
D 
HELD: 1. The High Court was right in taking the view that the 
respondent was the owner and entitled to a decree for possession for the 
land situated in Kothiakhad village. The Government bad agreed the 
claim of the respondent to the live villages as his private property as a 
part of the merger agreement and there is no escape from the conclusion 
E that the land in question which lies in one of these villages, namely, 
Kothiakhad being the personal private property of the respondent could 
not fall within the ambit of Seciton 6 of the Taluqdari Abolition Act. 
[322 A·B] 
F 
2. The State Government had allotted the land in question in the 
year 1964 and a large number of landless marginal farmers have improved 
the land for cultivation by their own labour and it would cause great harm 
and injustice to dispossess and dislodge these large number of families of 
poor farmers from the land in question. On the other band the respondent 
has proved bis ownership and right of possession over the land. But It is 
G not disputed that the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act are applicable 
and the legal representatives of the respondent are bound to surrender the 
area in excess of the ceiling permitted under the Ceiling Act. 
[322-H, 323 A·B] 
H 
3. In the circumstances of the case it is directed that the legal 
MAHISAGAR CO-OP. SOCIETY v. THAKORE JAGDEVSINHJI [KASLIWA

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