STATE OF GUJARAT ETC. versus VAKHTSINGHJI SURSINGHJI VAGHELA & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 692 · Decided: 08-04-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

•692 
STATE OF GUJARAT ETC. 
v. 
VAKHTSINGH11 SURSINGHJI VAGHELA & ORS. ETC. 
April 8, 1968 
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., R. S. BACHAWAT, G. K. MITTER, 
C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.J 
Bombay Taluqdari Abolition Act 62 of 1949. ss. 7 and 14-Right to 
'JJ(ly ;ania or land revenue at reduced rates-Whether a right for whicli 
compensation 1) payable under s. 14-15% solatium whether pa,vable in 
addition to conipensation for lands under s. 1-Method of 1vorking out 
.contpensation for irrigation bunds, tanks and 1vells-Right to compensa-
--- tion for river, river beds, Bht4has. 
Constitution of India, Art. 227-Scope of High Court's power to in-
terfere with Tribunal's order and to give directions. 
The respondcnts filed claims before the Collector 
Ahmedabad for 
compensation under ss. 11 and 14 of the Bombay Taluqdari Abolition 
Act, 1949. Against the Collector's awards !hey appealed to the Revenue 
Tribunal and thereafter filed petitions under Art. 227 before the High 
·Court. From the High Court's orders the State of Gujarat appealed to 
Ibis Court. The matters in dispute were: (i) whethel' the right to pay 
.only 60% of the full jama or revenue assessment on their lands which 
the respondents had been enjoying was a right for the extinguishment 
of which compensation under s. 14 of the Act was pavable; (ii) whether 
under the provisions of the Act the respondents were entitled to 15% 
solatium in addition to the compensation which they were awarded for 
their lands; (iii) what was the proper method of working out the value 
·Of irrigational bunds, tanks and weUs for the purpose of compensation; 
(iv) whether compensation was payable to the respondents in respect of 
river and river beds. The Court had also to consider the scope of the 
High Court's power under Art. 227 of the Constitution in the context of 
the case. 
HELD: (i) The taluqdari estates were liable to payment of jama. 
As a matter of concession the jama was generally 60% of the survey 
.....,sment. The taluqdars had no legal right to claim the concession on 
the expiry of their current settlements, ·and at the next revisional settle-
ment the Government had the right to withdraw the concession and 
impoae full assessment The right of the taluqdars to pay the jama at 
the concessional rate till the expiry of the current settlement was pre· 
861"Ved by s. 5 of. the Abolition Act. The enhanced assessment which 
they had to pay thereafter did not affect any contractual or statutolry 
right vested in them. 
Even assuming that it modified or extinguished 
any right, such modification or extinguishment did not amount to trans. 
ference to public ownership of land or any right in or owr land within 
the meaning of s. 14 of the Abolition Act. The CoUector, the Revenue 
Tribunal and the High Court therefore rightly rejected the claim of the 
respondents for compensation for the difference in the jama and the full 
a8'cssment. [698 C, 699 H, 700 A] 
Rao Bahadur Kunwar Lal Singh v. The Central Provinces and Berar, 
[1944] F.C.R, 284, applied. 
Nalfllb Sardar f\larharsinghji lshvarshinghji v. The Secretarv of State 
for India. 43 Born. L.R. 167, referred to. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
GUJARAT V. VAKHTSINGHJI 
693 
(ii) The Collector is required by s. 7(1)(b) ,to make an award in 
the manner prescribed in s. 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The 
Collector has to make an award under s. 11 and having regard to s. 15 
in determining the amount of compensation, he is guided by the provi-
sions of s. 23 and s. 24. Section 23(1) requires an award of the market 
value of the :and. Section 23(2) requires an additional award of a sum 
of fifteen pee centum on such market value, in consideration of the com~ 
pulsory nature of acquisition. 
It follows that under s. 7(1)(b) of the 
Abolition Aet read with s. II of the Land Acquisition Act the taluqdars 
a£e entitled to receive as compensation the market v.alue of all rights in 
any property extinguished under s. 6 and in addition a sum of 15 per 
cent on such market value. 
Tho right is subject to the conditions and 
exceptions enumerated in sub-els. (i), (ii) and 
(ili) 
of 
s. 
7(i)(b). 
(701 C-FJ 
(iil) In regard to irrigational bunds, tanks and weJls the High Court 
rightly rejected the claim for compensation based on reinstatement value. 
This method should not be adopted when the market value deduced from 
the income derived from the lands would fairly compensate 
the owner 
and in no case can
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.