RATHOD BHIMJIBHAI MASRUBHAI RAJPUT AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND OTHERS

Citation: [1960] 2 S.C.R. 393 · Decided: 07-12-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
, 
-
-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
393 
Houses of Parliament in accordance with sub-s. (5) and 
sub-s. (6) of s. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. 
x959 
N arendra Kumar 
As the petition has succeeded in part and failed in 
and Others 
part, we order that the parties will bear their own 
v. 
costs. 
The Union of India 
Petition partly allowed. 
RATHOD BHIMJIBHAI MASRUBHAI RAJPUT 
AND ANOTHER 
v. 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND OTHERS 
(S. K. DAs, J. L. KAPUR and A. K. SARKAR, JJ.) 
Taluqdari Tenure-Abolition of-" Lal-liti" lands-Liability 
for land revenue-T aluqdari lands-Taluqdari Estate-Bombay 
Land Revenue Code, I879 (Bom. V of I879), s. IJ6(I)-Gitjrat 
Taluqdars' Act, I888 (Bom. VI of I888), ss. 4, 5, 22, JI-Bombay 
Taluqdari Tenitre Abolition Act, I949 (Bom. LXII of I949), 
SS. 2(3), (4), 3, 5(I)(a),(b), 5(2)(a) I7(C). 
The appellants who were holders of certain lands known as 
"Lal-liti" lands were assessed to land revenue under the 
provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, after the 
Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949, came into force. 
"Lal-liti" lands were granted originally by Taluqdars in Gujrat 
to cadets, widows of the family and relations for maintenance 
and to village servants and others, either in reward for past 
services or as remuneration for services to be performed. Before 
the establishment of British rule, Taluqdars had the position of 
semi-independent chiefs, but subsequent to the establishment of 
British rule they became mere owners of proprietary estates 
holding lands directly from Government, and in respect of such 
estates the Gujrat Taluqdars' Act, 1888, was passed providing for 
their revenue administration. The appellants claimed that these 
lands had been enjoyed without payment of any "jama" since 
pre-British times and that the exemption from payment of land 
revenue was not affected by the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure 
Abolition Act, 1949· 
The High Court took the view that the 
lands were liable to be assessed under s. S of that Act. It was 
contended for the appellants, inter alia, that no liability for 
payment of land revenue in respect of "Lal-liti" lands could 
arise under s. S of the Act, because (1) the Taluqdar retained no 
interest in such lands after the grant and, consequently, such 
lands were not taluqdari lands within the meaning of s. 2(3) of 
the Act, (2) clause (a) of s. 5(1) of the Act was merely declaratory, 
and Others 
Das Gupta]. 
I959 
December 7. 
394 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2)] 
I959 
while cl. (b) was the operative clause by which the only persons 
liable for payment of land revenue were (i) a taluqdar holding 
Rathod Bhimjibhai any taluqdari land and (ii) a cadet of a taluqdari family holding 
Masrubhai Rajput any taluqdari land for maintenance, and (3) even assuming that 
and Another 
cl. (a) made taluqdari lands liable to the payment of land revenue 
v. 
in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Land Re.venue 
The State of 
Code, a "Lal-Ii ti" holder could not be made liable, because he 
Bontbay and Others was not an occupant of unalienated land within the 1neaning of 
s. 136(1) of the Code. 
Held: (r) that having regard to the history of "Lal-liti" 
lands and the provisions of the Gujrat Taluqdar's Act, 1888, such 
lands are lands which form' part of a taluqdari estate, even 
though no "jama" was actually paid to the taluqdar or to 
Government, and are, therefore, taluqdari lands within the 
meaning of s. 2(3) of the Bombay Taluqdari Abolition Act, 1949; 
(2) that cl: (a) of s. 5(1) of the Bombay Taluqdari Abolition 
Act was . a general provision and applied the Bombay Land 
Revenue Code to all taluqdari lands, while cl. (b) was a particular 
deeming i;rovision with regard to the taluqdar and his cadet; 
and 
(3) that whatever might have been the position of a "Lal-
liti " holder earlier, on the abolition of the Taluqdari tenure by 
the Bombay Taluqdari Abolition Act, he became a holder in 
actual possession of land in respect of which the Government 
had not transferred its rights to the payment of revenue, wholly 
or partially, to the ownership of any person. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JumsnICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
327 of 1955. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order 
dated January 31, 1955, of the Bombay High Court, 
< 
in Special Civil Application No. IIOO of 1954. 
' 
V. JYI. Limaye, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji and 
Ramesliwar Nath, for the appellants. 
N. P. Nathwani, K. L. Hathi and R. H. Dhebar, for 
the res

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