STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus NARAYAN VYANKATESH DESHPANDE

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 980 · Decided: 31-03-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
980 
I 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
NARAYAN VYANKATESH DESHPANDE 
March 31, 1976 
[P. N. BHAGWATI, A. C. GUPTA ANDS. MURTAzA FAzAL ALI, JJ.] 
Bombay Paragana. and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 195~omf.ensa~ 
tion payable on resu1nption of land under s. 6(2)-Whether the wllt'!n was 
in respect of the soil or the watan was of land revenue-Construction 
of 
"Sanad" granted by the British Governnient in tertns "The Exemption From 
Land Revenue (No. I) Bombay Act 2 of 1863. 
The respondent by virtue of the sanad granted to his ancestors by 
the 
British Government, claimed, in respect of certain lands situated in village 
Shiramba Taluka Koregaon, District North Satara, compensation under s. 6(2) 
of the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950, for the 
resumption of the lands by the appellant. The suit claim of Rs. 15,074-4-0 
being "a sum equal to ten times the amount of such land revenue" was decreed 
by the trial court. 
On appeal by the State, the High Court affirmed the same, 
after construing the sanad granted by the British Government in favour of the 
respondents' ancestors and other relevant records. as it was a watan of land 
revenue and not in respect of the soil. 
Dismissing the State's appeal by special leave to this Court, 
HELD : (I) The High Court was right in holding that the grant in favour 
of the ancestors of the respondent was a grant of land revenue only and not a 
grant of the soil and since the watan held by the respondent at the date of the 
coming into force of the .Act was a watan of land revenue, the respondent was 
entitled to con1pensation in the sum of Rs. 15,074-4-0 under s. 6(2) of the 
Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watan (Abolition) Act, 1950. 
[982B-C] 
(2) The sanad undoubtedly used the words "lands" to describe the subject· 
matter of the grant. but the word "land" is defined in Bombay Act II of 1863 
[The Exemption From Land Revenue (No. 1) Act 1863,l to include share of 
land revenue and this meaning would apply in the construction of the word 
"land" in the sanad since the sanad was apparently granted pursuant to the 
enquiry made under Bombay Act II of 1863. The description of the sUbject-
matter would not, therefore, necessarily indicate that it was a grant of the son. 
In fact, this_ description standing alone would rather indicate that it was a 
grant of land revenue only, since grant of the soil would ordinarily be accom· 
panied by words such as 'Darobast' or 'Jal', 'Tarn', 'TruDa', 'Kastha' 
and 
'Pashan'. [981F-H] 
[Their Lordships deprecated the litigious approach adopted by tbe State 
Government and observed "State Governments which have public accountabi-
lity in respect of their actions should not lightly rush to this ,Court to challenge 
a JUdgme'!t of the ~igh Court which is plainly and manifestly correct and drag 
the opposite party in unnecessary expense.] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : 
Civil Appeal No. 1381 
of 
• 
1968. 
,,, 
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Decree dated 
the 22-2-1967 of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal 
No. 12/1960). 
M. N. Phadke, M. N. Shroff and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant. 
V. S. Desai and D. Goburdhan, for the respondent. 
• 
• 
MAHARASHTRA v. N. v. DESHPANDE (Bhagwati, J.) 
981 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BHAGWATI, J.-This appeal by special leave raises a short ques-
• ~ tion as to whether the Watan held by the respondent at the date of 
coming into force of the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans 
(Abolition) Act, 1950 was .a Watan of the soil, or a Watan of land 
revenue ouly, in respect of certain lands situate in village shirambe, 
Taluka Koregaon, District North Statara. If the Watan was in res-
pect of the soil, the respondent would not be entitled to any compen-
sation for the resumption of the Watan lands, but if it was a Watan of 
land revenue only, the respondent would have a claim for compensa-
tion for a "a sum equal to ten times the amount of such land revenue" 
under s. 6(2) of the Act. 
The respondent claimed that the Watan 
was of land revenue only and not of the soil and he was, therefore, 
entitled to compensation as provided in s. 6(2) of the Act and filed 
a suit for recovery of Rs. 15,074-4,0 by way of compensation against 
the State of Maharashtra in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, 
r Satara. The claim was decreed by the learned Civil Judge, 
Senior 
Division and on appeal by the State of Maharashtra the High Court 
affirmed 

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