THAKORESHRI NAHARSINGHJI DOLATSINGHJI & 2 ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 290 · Decided: 17-08-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.L. UNTWALIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
II 
290 
TIIAKORESHRI NAHARSINGHJI DOLATSINGIUI & 2 ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 
August 17, 1979 
[N. L. UNTWALIA AND A. P. SEN, JJ.J 
Bo1nbay Merged Territories & 
Areas 
(Jagirs 
Abolition) 
Act 1953-
Section 5(1)(b)-Scope of 
The lands in dispute, ·which were part of a former Princely State, were 
unalienated lands so long as the land revenue in respect of then1 was collected 
by the Princely State. They became alienated lands \.Vhcn the Princely State 
gra11ted proprietary jagir to the jagirdars. The jagirdars made settlement of the 
lands in dispute with the appellants iQ 1949. 
In the year 1936 survey settlement was made in the State and the land 
revenue payable by the jagirdars was assessed. 
When the State territory Vias 
merged \Vith tile province of Bombay the Land Revenue Code wa-s made applic· 
able to the lands in dispute. 
In 1953 Jagirs were abolished by the Bombay Jv1erged Territories and Areas 
(Jagir Abolition) Act, 1953. A proprietary jagir, as dofined by this Act, is a 
jagir in respect of which the jagirdar was entitled to any right or interest in the 
soil. 
Section 5(l)(b) of the Act made the j&girdar primarily liable to the 
State Government for the payment of land revenue due in respect of such 
land as an occupant under the Land Revenue· C'ode "or any other la\.V for the 
time being in force. 
The term "occupant" is defined in the Code to mean "a 
holder in actual possession of unalienated land other than a< tenant". 
As a 
result of these two provisions the appellant, having been in actual posst.-ssion of 
unalienated land, became "occupant", (that is to say, holder in actu<:-1 possession 
of the land under the State). 
After the land was settled by the ffiagirdar upon the appellant, new survey 
numbers were given to the lands in place of the old. 
\Vith the con1ing inlo 
force of the Jagirs Abolition Act the a·ppeliant claimed that he 
b~carne an 
"occupant" of the land together with the forest trees standing thereon. 
Before 
the year 1965, he was allowed to cut and remove the forest trees in his lanJ; 
but after the decision of this Court in U. R. Mavinkurve v. Tlzakor 
Madhav~ 
singhji Gan1b'1irsi11gh & Ors. [1965} 3 SCR 177 the authorities concerned took 
the stand that the forest trees had vested in the State and that the appemant \VaB 
not entitled to cut or remove them. 
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court. 
Purporting to folloy,• 
the decision of this Court in Mavinkurve the High Court held that there being 
no surYey settlen1ent of any of the lands, the forn1er Jagirdars or their settlees 
did not acquire any right or interest in the forest trees. The High Court also 
took the view that under s. 5(l)(b) of the Jagirs Abolition Act a person 
who became an occupant of the land was entitled to all the rights and liable 
to all the obligations in respect of such land under the Land Revenue Code 
and since there ¥.'as no settlement, the appellant could not fall back upon 
any provision of the Land Revenue Code for claiming a right in the trees. 
• 
y 
f 
• 
' 
• 
NAHARSJNGHJJ v. GUJARAT (Untwalia, J.) 
291 
In appeal to this Court it was contended that if a survey settlement Was 
carried out by son1e authority, though not under the provisions of the _Land 
Revenue Code and was. accepted a.nd acted upon by the State Government, 
it became a survey settlement under the Code itself. No reservation of any 
trees having been made at the survey settleme!nt or a{ any ti1ne thereafter the 
tre'es belonged to the former jagirdars or their settlees. 
AJlowing the appeals, 
HELD: (a) The appellant became occupant of the land in question together 
with the forest trees standing thereon and the governrnental authorities had no 
right to interfere \vith the appella<11ts dealing with the. forest trees, at any rate, 
before the passing of the Gujarat Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1972. 
[299FJ 
(b) The High Court has taken too· narrow a vie¥/ of the procedure for 
survey settlement. In the writ petitions there was not only a specific aYerment 
that there \\'as a survey settlement but documents had been filed to shov.· that 
there was a survey settlement in the State in 1936. There being no reservation 
of the trees in favour of the State the occupant became entitled to the san1e 
on the abolition of the jagirs. [296C-D] 
(c) By legal fiction as introduced in s. 216(2) 
of lhe Code the survey 
settlement should be deemed to have been completed in 1936 whi

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