SHRISHAILAGOUDA AND OTHERS ETC. versus GURUSANGAPPA RAMASOMAPPA DESAI AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 116 · Decided: 29-07-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.C. GUPTA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
·116 
'. 
SHRISHAILAGOUDA AND OTHERS ETC. 
V: 
GURUSANGAPPA RAMASOMAPPA DESAI AND ANOTHER 
July 29, 1980 
[A. C. GUPTA AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.) 
Bombay Pargana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 
1950, Section 4, 
scope of-Regrant of watan lands under section 4 of the 1950 Act /zas 
no 
nexus to the rejection of an application under section 10 Bombay lferedirary 
Offices Act (Act III of 1874)-Grant was of the soil and .not of the royal share 
of the revenue. 
The respondent's 
ancestors 
continuously enjoyed 
the watan property 
through the years since the 17th century when it was granted and performed 
the duties of the office of the watandar in spite of political changes in the 
country. After the death of the then holder of the watan in 1851, a11 enquiry 
into the rights of his son Bhimrao was started under the Bombay Rent Free 
Estates Act, 1852 and later in 1863 a .settlement known as "Gordon Settlement" 
was made under section 15 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, (Act III of 
1874), whereby a 
sanad was 
issued by 
the British 
Government 
to the 
respondent's ancestor Bhimrao in 1872. 
The Sanad is in the standard form 
of a Gordan Sanad and says that the lan.ds and cash allowances shall be 
continued ini lineal succession from generation to generation on condition 
that the persons in enjoyment and their heirs shall be obedient to the British 
Government and act faithfully and 
honestly 
and shall 
go on paying to 
Government permanently every year the amount mentioned in the Sanad. 
In 1874 some of these watan lands were auction-sold in execution of a 
money decree obtained by the 
appellants' 
ancestors 
and as a result of a 
compromise decree obtained in 1912, the ancestors of the appellant, 
being 
decree holders, were allowed to be in possession of these lands during the 
life time of Bhimrao and his adopted son Ramasomappa. 
Bhimrao ilied in 
1918 and Ramasomappa in 1944. Section 5 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices 
Act, 1874 forbids a watandar to alienate the watan property beyond his 
lifetime to any person not a.watandar 'of the same watan. After Ramasomappa's 
death therefore the appellants ceased 
to have 
any right 
to continue in 
possession of the lands. 
Respondent Gurusangappa is Raniasom2ppa'5 son. 
Consequent on 
the coming 
into force 
of the Bombay 
Pargana and 
Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 
1950 abolishing the watans, 
the watan 
lands were resumed and were made subject to the payment of land revenue 
subject to the provisions of section 4. 
Respondent Gurusangappa and also 
the appellants applied to the prescribed authority for regrant of the aforesaid 
watan lands under section 4 of the Act. 
Earlier to this an application made 
in 1947 made on behalf of respondent Gurusangappa under section 10 of the 
Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 when he was a minor was rejected. 
The appellants lost before all authorities under the Act who held that 
the respondent was the holder of the watan !ind was a~ such entitled to an 
order of regrant. 
The Mysore Revenue Appellant Tribunal, B~lgaum howeve1 
i SHRIS.HAILAGOUDA ·v. GURUSANGAPPA. (Gupta, J.) 
set aside in revision the . order of regrant in favour of _the. respondent. 
Tho 
A 
> 
High Court allowed the writ petition of the respondent challenging the order 
of the Revenue Tribunal· and restored the order of regrant in his favour. 
Dismissing the appeal from the order of the High Court, the Court, 
HELD : (I) On the facts found by the· authorities under the 1950 Act 
except the Revenue Tribunal the respondent would be clearly entitled to the 
Watan lands being regranted to him under section 4. of the Act. 
All -the 
authorities . including the Revenue Tribunal having held that the appellants 
were strangers to the walan and, therefore, could not as]\ for an order under 
section 4. in their 
favour and 
the appellants not 
having challenged 
this 
finding it has become final. [120E·F] 
Collector of South Satara and another v. Laxman Madhav Deshpande and 
others [1964] 2 SCR 48, followed. 
(2) The Sanad_ granted to Bhimrao in 1872 was on the basis that there 
-, 
was a watan and that Bhimrao was the holder of the watan. 
The Sanad of 
1872 granted only the right to hold the watan lands free from full assessment. 
The Revenue Tribunal was wrong in thinking that 
the Sanad granted the 
royal share of the revenue. [120G·H] 
Ramasqmappa Bhimrao Desai v. The Secretary of State for India in 
D 
Council. 39 Born. L. R. 8

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