LexRANGILDAS VARAJDAS KHANDWALA versus COLLECTOR OF SURAT AND OTHERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,.
·'
1 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
951
RANGILDAS VARAJDAS KHANDW ALA
v.
COLLECTOR OF SURAT AND OTHERS.
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., J. L. KAPUR,
P. B. GAJENDRAGAD.KAR, K. SUBBA RAO and
K. N. WANOHOO, JJ.)
Inams-Abolition of Personal Ina1ns~Constitutional validity
of Enactment-Land .used for non-agricultural purpose-Levy of
full assessment by Collector-V alidity~Bombay Land Revenue Code.
r879 (Rom. 5 ~f i879), ss. 45, 48. 52. II7-R-Bombay Personal
Inams Abolition Act. 1952 (Bom. 42 of i953), ss. 4, 5, 7-Constitu-
tion of India, Arts. 31-A, 294(b).
The appellant was the holder of a personal inam which he
had purchased from the original inamdar to w horn a San ad had
been issued under Bombay Act No. VII of 1863.
He was pay-
ing Rs. 7 as salami and Rs. 6-3-0 as quit rent, the full assess-
ment· of the land being Rs. 56-8-0. The land which formed part
of the inam was originally in a village but subsequently became
a part of the suburbs of the city of Surat and as the land was
being used for non-agricultural purpose and a large bungalow
h~d been erected on it, the Collector decided that it was liable
to non-agricultural assessment under s. 52 of the Bombay Land
Revenue Code, i879, with effect from August I, 1955, in view of
provisp (b) to s. 4 of the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act,
1952. The appellant challenged the constitutionality of the
Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1952. on the grounds,
inter alia, (1) that the Act was not protected by Art. 31-A of the
Constitution of India as the property which had been dealt with
under the Act was not an estate and no compensation had been
provided in the Act for taking away the property of the appel-
lant, and (2) that in view of the fact that the holder of the
inam was given a S .. nad when his inam was recognised, it was
not open to the State 0f Bombay to enact a law which would in
any way vary the tern's of the Sanad. The appellant also con-
tended that, in any cas,,, the Collector's order to the effect that
the land should be as>essed under s. 52 of the Bombay Land
Revenue Code, 1879, as 11on-agricultural was incorrect because
(r) s. 7 of the Act created"1an exception to ss. 4 and 5 with res-
pect to lands of inamdars used for building or for other non-
agricultural purposes and therefore the appellant's inam land
which was used entirely for ;ion-agricultural purposes could not
be assessed under s. 5 of tL"e Act, (2) that s. 52 of the Code
which-gave pi>wer to the Colleotor to make assessments of lands
not wholly exempt from the p.iyment of land revenue did not
apply to this case because here the assessment had been fixed
under the provisions of Cb. VII{-A of the Code and s. 52 only
applied when no assessment had l:ieen fixed under Ch. VIII-A.
October 3.
IQ60
Rangildas
952
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961]
Held: (1) that the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act,
1952, was valid and was protected by Art. 3r-A of the Constitu-
tion of India.
Varajd••
Gangadharrao Narayanrao Majumdar v. Stale of Bombay,
Hha.,du·ala
[1961) r S.C.R. 943, Thakur fagannalh Baksh Sin~h v. U>nled
v.
Prot'inas. [1946) F.C.R. III and Maharaj llmeg S<ngh v. The
Col/"tor of Surat Stale of Bombay, (1955] 2 S.C.R. i64, followed.
IYanchoo ] . •
(2) that the exception made ins. 7 of the Act only saved
such inam lands as were used for building or other non-agricul-
tural purposes by the inamdar from vesting in the Government,
but they remained subject to the provisions of ss. 4 and 5 of the
Act.
(3) thats. 52 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879,
when it said that the section would not apply where assessment
had been fixrd under Ch. VIII-A of the Code, referred to actual
assessment under the Chapter and not to what was deemed to
be an assessment under that Chapter by virtue of s. u7-R, and
that as the land in the present case was not wholly exempt
frorn revenue and as in fact no assessment had been fixed on the
land under Ch. VIII-A, s. 52 would apply and the Collector
would have power to make an assessment in the manner prc>-
vided by that section.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal
No. 6 of 1959.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment e.nd
order dated March 5, 1957, of the Bombay High
.Court in Special Civil Application No. 3255 of 1956.
Dhan Prasad Balkrishna Padhye and P. K. Chatter-
jee, for the appellant.
H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor.Generai of India,
N. P. Nathwani, K. N. Hathi and R. H. Dhebar, for
the reExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.