NARAYAN BHONDOO PIMPUTKAR & ANOTHER versus LAXMAN PURSHOTTAM PIMPUTKAR & ORS.

Citation: [1974] 2 S.C.R. 116 · Decided: 30-10-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

116 
NARA YAN BHONDOO PIMPUTKAR & ANOTHER 
,\ 
V. 
LAXMAN PURSHOTTAM PIMlltJTKAR · & ORS. 
October 30, 1973 
[H. R. KHANNA, V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND R. S. SARICAIUA; 11.} 
Gujarat Patel Watans Abolition Ac&,. 1961 (Gµjarat Act 48 of 1961). 1. 4-
fl. 
Aboiltioll nf 'oa1r-l watnns'-RiJ?ht nf watandar to execute deCree for possession 
of land, if affected. 
On the question whether, the right to execute a decree for the possession of 
watan land which has been obtained by the watandar came to an end, becal.18e 
of the abolition 'by the Gujarat Patel Watans Abolition Act, 1961, of patel 
watans and the cxtinguishment of all incidents appertaining to them under :ii. 4 
of the Act, 
HELD : ( 1) There is nothing in the language of s. 4 which renders such 
C 
decrees for possession to be inexecutable. Had the legislature intend9d. that 
such decrees should become inexecutable, tlie legislature would have indicated 
such intention by incorporating some provision to that effect. 
f121Bl 
(2) The words 1'any decree or order of a Court'' in the opening clause of 
the section do not indicate that the decree or order of court could not 
be 
executed with effect from the appointed day. The opening clause of the section 
only indicates that irrespective of any usage or custom and irrespective of any 
D 
settlement, grant, agreement, sanad or decree or order of a. court or the existing 
watan law. which might have defined and dtclared the incidents appertaining to 
patC'l watans, the results contemplated by the various clauses of the section 
would follow and nothing contained in such settlement etc. would prevent the 
operation of that section. 
[122E-123A] 
(3) The fact that pate! watans have been abolished and incidents appertain· 
ing to them hav"' been extinl'n!ished does not lead to the conclusion that the 
right of the erstwhile watandar to the possession of the watan lands also comes 
to an end. Section 4(iv' expressly provides that the resumption of watan land 
E 
consequent upon the abolition of patel watans would be subject to the provi.~ 
sions of sections 6, 7 and 10. According to s. 6, the watan land, subject to the 
conditions mentioned in that section, shall_ be regranted to the watandar. 
He 
shall be deemed to be occupant of the said land, and he would be entitled to 
continue in possession if be complies with the provisions of that section. 'That 
is, so far as the quondam watandars are concerned, they are entitled to be in 
possession of the watan Jands, though not in their capacity as watandars but by 
-virtue of the operation of s. 6 of the Act. If the respondent would be entitled 
to be in russession of the land under s. 6, the right to execute the decree for 
F 
poosession of land cannot be denied to him. [121C-122] 
( 4) If the respondent is entitled to execute the decree for possession of the 
Jand obtained against the 
app~llants the question whether the appellants, if 
allowed to remain in possession, could have applied for rcgrant to them_ under 
' 10 is not relevant 
[122C-E] 
Civ1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1573(N) of 
tn~ 
G 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 
3rd February, 1971 of the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in Sec-Ond 
Appeal No. 639 of 1968. 
V. S. Desai, P. C. Bhartari and A. G. Meneses, for the appellants. 
D. V. Patel, P. H. Parekh and Sunanda Bhandare, for respondent 
~1. 
H 
S. K. Dholakia. and M. N. Shroff, for respondent No. 2. 
D. N. Mishra, for respondents Nos. 3a to 3d. 
NARAYAN v. LAXMAN (Khanna, J.) 
117 
..\ 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KHANNA, J.-Whether the decree for the possession of the land in 
dispute awarded in favour of LaXIUan Purshottam Pimputkar respon-
de11t No. 1 (hereinafter described as the respqndentJ has become 
inexecutable after fhe ooming into force of the Gujarat Patel Watans 
Abolition Act, 1961 (Gujarat Act 48 of 1961) (hereinafter referred 
B 
to as the Act) is the short question which arises for determination 
in this appeal brought by special leave against the judgment of the 
Gujarat High Court. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The appellants and the respondent belong to one family. 
The 
reapondent represents the seniormost branch of the family. The family 
was granted Patilki Watan in a number of villages, including Solsumbha, 
in district Thana. The watan land situated in Solsumbha is the subject 
matter of the present dispute. Under the Bombay Hereditary Offices 
Act, 1874 the person who actually performs 

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