THE COLLECTOR OF BOMBAY versus NUSSERWANJLRATTANJI MISTRI & OTHERS

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1311 · Decided: 28-02-1955 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIVIAN BOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

. ( 
v· . 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1311 
· THE COLLECTOR OF BOMBAY 
... 
) 
. . 
. ,, . .. . 
. 
·. "· 
NUSSERWANJLRATTANJI MISTRI & OTHERS .. 
. 
' 
(VIVIAN 
BosE, 
}AGANNADHADAS, 
VENKATARAMA 
AYYAR and SINHA JJ.] 
· 
Land revenue-Assessment-Right of Government to· levy-Foras 
tenure-Incidents-Foras Land Act (Bombay Act VI of 1851), s. 2-
Land Acquisition, effect of-Land Acquisition Act (VI of 1857), s. 8 
-Crown Grants Act (XV of 1857), s. 3-Scope of-Bombay City 
Land Revenue Act (Bombay Act II of 1876). 
In the island of Bombay certain lands were held on a tenure 
known as "Foras". 
Under s. 2 of Bombay Act VI of 1851 the 
occupants were entitled to hold the lands subject only to the payment 
of revenue .then payable. Between 1864 and 1867 the Government 
of India acquired these lands under the provisions of the Land 
Acquisition Act (VI of 1857). On 22-11-1938 the Governor-General 
sold them to certain persons under whom the present respondents 
claimed. In April 1942 the appellant acting under the Bombay City 
Land Revenue Act (Bombay Act II of 1876) issued notices to the 
respondents proposing to levy assessment on the lands at the rates 
mentioned therein. 
The respondents thereupon instituted two suits 
disputing the right of the appellant to assess the lands to revenue. 
They contended that under the Foras Land Act the occupants had 
acquired the right to hold the lands on payment of revenue not 
exceeding what was then payable, that the right to. levy even that 
asseessment was extinguished when the Government acquired the !_ands 
under the Land Acquisition Act, that the Governor-General having 
conveyed the lands absolutely under the sale deed dated 22-11-1938 
the respondents were entitled to hold them revenue-free and that 
even if revenue was payable it could not exceed what was payable 
under the Foras Land Act. 
Held, (i) that under the Foras Land Act (VI of 1851) the 
occupants of Foras lands acquired a specific right to. hold th.em on 
payment of assessment not exceeding what was then payable. 
(ii) that the right of the Government to levy assessment was 
not the. subject-matter of the land acquisition proceedings and that 
the effect of those proceedings was only to extinguish the rights of 
the occupants in the lands and to vest them absolutely in the Gov-
ernment. 
· · · 
(iii) that where there is an absoiute sale by the Crow1.1 it 
does not necessarily import · that the fand' Js conveyed revenue-
free: 
· · 
The question 1s one of construction of the grant. · The· rule is 
that a grantee from the Crown gets ·only what is granted by the 
1955 
February 28 
1?:55: 
The· cOl;e-clOr·.·of 
'Bombaj, · 
v. 
Nusserwanji 
Rattanj1° Mistri 
and others 
1312 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[i955J 
deed and nothing. passes by_ implication. 
When the grant is em· 
bodied in a deed the question Ultimately reduces itself to a detern1i· 
nation of what was granted therronder. 
Section 3 of the Cro\vn 
Grants Act (XV of 1895) that "all provisions,. restrictions,- conditions 
and limitations over shall' take effect according to their tenor" does 
not app}y when the question is as to the liability to pay revenue. 
(i~) that the Foras tenure became extinguished when the lands 
were acquired under the Land Acquisition proceedings and it was 
incapable of coming back to life \vhen the· lands were sold on 
22·11-1938 and_ the respondents cannot claim a right tO pay assess~ 
ment only at the rate at Which it was payable under the Foras 
Land Act. 
Goswamini Shri Kamala Vahooji v. Collector of Bombay ([1937] 
L.R. 64 I.A. 334), Shapurji fivanji v. The Collector of· Bombay 
{[1885] l.L.R.- 9 Bom. 483, 488), Naoroji Beramji v. Rogers (4 Born. 
H.C.R. l), Deputy Collector, Calicut Division v. Aiyavu · Pillay 
{[1911] 9 I.C. 341), Dadoba v. Collector of Bombay {[!901] I.L.R. 25 
Bom. 714), Thakur fagannath Baksh Singh v. The United Provinces 
{[1946] F.L.J. 88) and Collector of Bombay v.' Municipal Corpora-
tion of the City of Bombay and others ([1952] S.C.R. 43), referred to. 
CIVIL 
AP PELLA TE 
No. 74 of 1952. 
JURISDICTION : 
Civil 
Appeal 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and 
Decree dated the 10th November 1948 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal from Ori-
ginal Decree No. 274 of 1945 arising out of the decree 
dated the 17th March 1945 of the Court of Revenue 
Judge, Bombay in Suits Nos. 7 and 23 of 1943. 
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for 
India (Porus 
A. Mehta, with him), for the appe

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