STATE OF BOMBAY (MAHARASHTRA) versus SHIVBALAK GOURISHANKER DUBE & OTHERS

Citation: [1965] 1 S.C.R. 211 · Decided: 31-08-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE 01<' BOMBAY (MAHARASHTRA) 
v. 
SHIVBALAK GOURISHANKER DUBE & OTHERS 
August 31, 1964 
21 1 
(P. B. uAJENDRAGM>KAR, C.J., J. C. SHAH AND N. RAJAGOPALA 
B 
AYYANGAR JJ.) 
c 
D 
E 
F 
. Delegation of power-Whether includes delegation of dutieJ nuessary 
jor exercU~ of th~ power-Bombay Tenancy ti.nd .Agricultural Lill~·$ Act, 
1948 (Bom. 67 of 1948), .s. 65, 83. 
A notice was served by the appellant-State inviting the attention of Ille 
respondents to the fact that the agricultural lands of which they were tile 
owners had remained fallow, and intimating to them that the appellant 
would resume management of the said lands under s. 65 of the Bombay 
Tenancy and Agricultural Laws Act unless the respondents took steps to 
bring them under cultivation in the following agricultural seaoon. It appears 
that later, an enquiry was made ·under the orders of the Deputy Collector 
as a result of which he passed an orger under s. 65 directing that the lands 
should 6e resumed by the State for cultivation. 
Having failed in their 
efforts to get the order of the Deputy Collector altered, the respondents 
filed a suit for a declaration that the order passed by the Deputy CoHeclor 
was illegal and void and that it could not dispossess them of the lands which 
belonged to them. The suit was dismissed. The respondents appealed to 
the High Court and it found that on a fair and reasonable construction of 
s. ,65(1) read with s. 83, the appellant could _delegate its powers pres-
cribed by s. 65 ( 1), but could not delegate its duty inciaental tc the 
exercise of the said power, and as it reversed the decree passed by the 
trial Court. 
On appeal by special leave : 
HELD: (i) Section 83 authorises the delegation not only of tile 
powers mentioned by it, but also the duties or functions which are inciden-
tal to the existence of the powers and are integrally connected with lbea 
[216 A-BJ 
Edward Liso Mungoni v. Attorney-General of Northern Rhodala, 
[1960) 2 W.L.R. 389. referred to. 
(ii) Section 65(1)· does not require that the Deputy Collector -t 
himself go to the agncultural fields and enquire on the spot whether tlley 
were lying fallow. 
He tnay, if he so desires, record evidence himlelf, 
or the rccorrling of the evidence and the actual inspection on the opot GD 
be left to some subordinate officer. The report of such local inspectioll 
and the record of the evidence collected in that behalf would be forwarded 
to the Deputy Collector, and that would be the material on which he 
would hold the enquiry himself. 
This procedure does not involn •Y 
G 
delegation at all. 
[217 H; 218 B; 217 0-H]. 
Alllntlram v. Ministtr of Agriculture and Fisheries, [1948] 1 AIL E.R. 
780, distinguished. 
H 
Nathublwi Gandabhai Desai v. State of Bombay & OrJ. I.Lil. [1955) 
Bom. 407, referred to. 
CJ:vu, APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 269 of 
1962. 
. 
, 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
October 5, 1959 of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal :No. 
712 of 1955. 
212 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1%5) l S.C.R 
S. G. Patwardhan and B.R.G.K. Achar, for the appellant. 
G. S. Pathak and Naunit Lal, for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Gajelldragadkar C. J. 
What is the scope and effect of 
the provisions contained in section 65 read with s. 83 of the 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (No. 67 of 
1948) (hereinafter called the Act), that is the short question 
which arises for our decision in this appeal. 
The four rcspon· 
dents are the owner of certain agricultural lands in Deokhope 
A 
' .. 
i.i Taluka Palghar in Maharashtra. 
On the 23rd June, 1951, a 
notice was served by the appellant, State of Bombay (now Maha-
C 
rashtra), inviting the attention of the respondents to the fact that 
the agricultural lands of w.hich they were the owner6 had remained 
fallow since I 948-49, and intimating to them that the appellant 
State would resume management of the said lands under s. 65 of 
the Act unless the re6pondents took steps to bring them under 
cultintion in the following agricultural season. The respondoots 
were told that in ca.o;e they wanted to bring the said lands into 
cultivJltion, they should send intimation of their intention to do 
SC!l within JS days from the d_J!le of the receipt of the notice. 
It' 
appears that later, an enquiry was made under the orders of the 
Dy. Collector as a result of which on the 30th. December, 1951, 
he passed an order under s. 65 dir
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.