SAYED REHMANMIYA MUSTAFAMIYA & OTHERS versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 293 · Decided: 02-12-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VISHISHTHA BHARGAVA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

--
A 
B 
c 
0 
E 
F 
G 
293 
SAYED REHMANMIYA MUSTAFAMIYA & OTHERS 
v. 
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS 
December 2, 1969 
[V. BHARGAVA AND K. S. HEGDE, J J .] 
Ho111hay lt11td R£'l'et111e ('ode (Act V of 1879) s. 52 Chaps. VIII and 
VIII-A and Sa11rashtrt1 Barkha!i Aholitio11 Acl (16 of J95l) s. 19-Scope 
of. 
Ordinance XXV of J 948, issued by the Raj Pran1ukh of the then St<th~ 
of Saurashtra. 'A-'as amended by Ordinance XXXIX of 1948 a11J Ordi-
~ancc LXlV of 1949, "-'ith _the result that matters relating to lanJ revenue 
1n the State Wl.~e governed by the Bombny Land Revenue Code. Sc<."lion 
52 of the Code gives power to the Collecto·r for fixing the asscssn1cnt of 
the an1ount to he paid as land revenue on all lands, Chap. VIII deals v.i1h 
1_he procedure for "survey·, and Chap. VJIJ-A deals with the procedure 
for 'settlement". 
In 1951, the Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition Act. 1951. 
for <1holition of Barkhali tenure was passed. 
Section 18 of the 
Act 
provided fOr payn1cnt Of cash annuities as 
compensation 
to 
Barkhali 
tenure-holders calculated on the basis of the ~1ssc~sn1cnt in respect of 1hc 
land in possession of the ten.ants of such holders. 
S~1ch asscssn1ent in 
relation to any 
land. 
until the village in which such Janel is situate ir 
\Urveyed {Ind ,\'ettled, is definell in -::;, 19(1) and has to he <lctcrn1incd by 
the Marnlatdar after 'holding an inquiry under s. 19(2). 
The appellants, who were BarkhaJi tenure-holders. were paid instal-
n1ents of annuity till 1959 on the basis of asses~n1ent determined under s. 
19(1) and (2). In 1959. the existing r. 17 
of the Saurashtra Ltntl 
Revenue Rules framed under the Bombay Land 
RcvC'nuc 
Code 
\i.·as 
llelctcd antl a new rule was substituted. This rule laid tlown the n1etho<l 
10 be adopted by the Collector for fixing the assessment under s. 52 of 
the Colle, but the procedu're did not invol1·e ony Slt1Tey or se~tle111e11t 
un<ler Chaps. VIII an<l Vlll-A of the Co<lc. 
Jn pursuance of this rule. 
the Collector determined under s. 52 of the Code, the assessment payable 
on the lan<l.s which were held under Barkhali·tenure by the appellants. 
The Government then paid annuity un<ler s. 18 of the Abolition Act on 
the basi ... of the Collector's assessment instea<l of continuing payment on 
the basis of the assessment made by the Mamlatdar under s. 19 of the 
Act. 
This was challenged by the appellants unsuccessfully in the High 
Court. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD : Under s. 19 of the Abolition Act, the assessment made bv 
the Marnlatdar under that section continues 
in 
force 
until there iv a 
s11rvey and settle111ent in accordance with (,haps. VIII and VITI-A of the 
Code. and there having been. no such survey and settlement of the viUagcs 
H 
of the appellant, the assessment made by. the Mamlatdar continued to be 
the assessment for purposes of the Aboht1on Act. Therdore, the Govern· 
mcnt was not justified in varying the payment of annmty under s. 18 of 
the Act. [300 G-HJ 
!..7Sup.CI(NP)/70-9 
294 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1970] 3 S.C.R.· 
(a) By virtue of s. 2(v) of the Barkhali Abolition Act and s. 2(33) • A 
of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, 1951, all words and expressions, 
used, but not defined in the Abolition Act, have the meanings assigned to 
them in the Bombay Land Revenue Code. 
The words 'surveyed' and 
'settled' are not defined in the Abolition Act, but the expression 'survey 
settlement' is defined in the Code as including a settlement made under 
the provisions of Chap. VIII-A of the Code. Therefore, at the time when 
the Abolition Act was passed. the only manner of survey which was laid 
down by any law applicable in the State was that contained in Chap. VIII 
of the Code, and the only manner of settlement was that contained in 
Chap. VIII-A; that is, the words 'surveyed' and 'settled' used in s. 19 of 
the Abolition Act were intended to refer to the survey aiid settlement 
under Chaps. VIII and VIII-A of the Code. The Legislature envisaged 
that, in areas in which there had been no survey and settlement in accord-
ance with Chaps. VIII and Vlll-A such operations would be undertaken. 
But, for the intervening period, the Legislature, in s. 19 of the Abolition 
Act, laid down a convenient and summary method of assessment by the 
Mamlatdar, which was to be treated as the assessment until the vil/af!e in 
which the land i~ situate is surveyed and settled. The Legislature did not 
i otend that the Mamlatdar's assessment should be sup

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