THE STATE OF BOMBAY versus FAKIR UMAR DHANSE.

Citation: [1961] 3 S.C.R. 747 · Decided: 03-02-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.L. KAPUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COUH.T H.EPORTS 
747 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY 
v. 
FAKIR UMAR DHANSE. 
(J. L. KAPUR and J. C. SHAH, J,J.) 
Unalienable agricultural land-Occupant-If could alter the 
user to non-agricultural purposes-Unauthorised structures-Nature 
of right of Revenue Authorities to evict-Words "eviction" and 
" Vacation" meaning of-The Bombay Land Revenue Code, r879 
(V of r879), s. 66. 
The respondent who was the occupant of an unalienated land 
had erected several structures on it without obtaining the prior 
permission of the Collector and became liable to be evicted. The 
Collector served a notice of eviction on the respondent under 
s. 66 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and called upon him to 
remove the unau.thorised- structures. On the respondent not 
having complied with the notice, he was evicted from the land 
and some of the buildings were demolished. 
The High Court held that the order directing the removal of 
the structures was ultra vires of s. 66 of the Bombay Land 
Revenue Code and though the order of eviction was legal and 
intra vires but in spite of the eviction, the land or the buildings 
did not vest in the Government and the occupant continued to be 
the owner of the building and the land and the only consequence 
of eviction was physical removal of the occupant from the land. 
The question was whether the occupier who had been evicted 
was required to remove the building and in default could the 
collector demolish the building and was liable to damage for such 
demolition. 
Held, that on a true construction of ss. 65 and 66 of the 
Bombay Land Revenue Code an occupant was only entitled to 
the use and occupation of unalienated land for the purpose of 
agriculture, and could not alter the user to non-agricultural pur-
poses except with the permission of the Revenue Authorities, 
and any such altered user entitled the Revenue Authorities to 
summarily evict the occupant from the land and once evicted 
the right of user and occupation could not be exercised by him. 
The words "eviction" and "vacation " did not mean mere 
physical removal of the occupant, they meant that his rights 
came to an end. For the purpose of "vacation" it was necessary 
that any unauthorised construction put up must also be removed, 
and no specific powers were necessary for such removal, the 
power to remove them was incidental and ancillary to the powers 
to evict and to get the land.vacated. 
The true effect of eviction was physical removal of the 
c.ccupant from the land with all the Gonsequences, i.e., demolition 
of all unauthorised superstructure, 
90 
February 3. 
748 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961] 
1961 
The word " eviction " as used in s. 66 of the Code meant that 
on eviction, land had to be restored to the original position 
Stat• of Bombay so as to be used for the purpose for which it was given to the 
v. 
occupant. 
Fakir Umar Dhans1 
C 
A 
!VIL 
PPELLATE JURISDIOTION: 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 377 ofl957. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated 
September 24, 1954, of the Bombay High Court in First 
Appeal No. 355of1950. 
R. Ganapathy Iyer, K. L. Hathi and D. Gupta, for the 
appellant. 
B. D. Sharma, for the respondent. 
· 1961. February 3. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
Kapur J. 
KAPUR, J.-This is an appeal against the judgment 
and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. 
The appellant wa.s the defendant in a suit brought 
by the respondent who was the plaintiff and the facts 
giving rise to the appeal are these: 
The respondent was the occupant of unalienated 
land, Survey No. 145, Hissa No. 2 of Maha.d in the 
district of Cola.ha. He applied on November 1, 1941, 
to the Collector for permission to construct a tempo-
rary shed for one year on the above mentioned land 
and permission wa.s granted on January 9, 1942. The 
respondent ma.de another application for extension of 
the period of the permission by two yea.rs. 
On 
en~uiry it wa.s found that the respondent ha.d con-
structed permanent structures without leaving a.n 
open space of 20 feet between the road a.nd the build-
ing a.nd when asked to lea. ve this space open he 
refused to do so and therefore the application dated 
September 9, 1942, was dismissed. On March 28, 1943, 
the respondent made another applica.tioll stating that 
he was prepared to remove the building which was 
within 20 feet of the road. The Collector accepted 
this request a.nd asked the respondent to remove that 
portion of the building which wa.s within 2

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