The order passed by the Dy.
269 of 1962.
Collector as a result of which on the 30th December, 1951, he passed an order under s. 65 directing that the lands should be resumed by the Government for cultivation.
Collector before he passed the impunged order.
Thereafter, respondent No.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated October 5, 1959 of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No.
Collector was number null and void.
Collector on the 30th December, 1951 was illegal and void, and that it companyld number dispossess them of the lands which belonged to them.
The respondents then moved the Revenue Department, but that effort also failed.
The plea raised by the respondents against the validity of the statutory provisions companytained in sections 65 66 of the Act was rejected by him, because he thought that the said sections did number companytravene the provisions of Articles 19 and 31 of the Constitution.
It appears that later, an enquiry was made under the orders of the Dy.
The respondents then carried the matter before the High Court by an appeal, and on their behalf three companytentions were raised before the High Court.
As a companysequence of the declaration thus claimed by them, the respondents, asked for a decree for possession and mesne profits against the appellant.
On the 23rd June, 1951, a numberice was served by the appellant, State of Bombay number Maharashtra , inviting the attention of the respondents to the fact that the agricultural lands of which they were the owners had remained fallow since 1948 49, and intimating to them that the appellant State would resume management of the said lands under s. 65 of the Act unless the respondents took steps to bring them under cultivation in the following agricultural season.
Thereafter, representations were made by the respondents to the Dy.
Collector in respect of other lands remained unaffected.
Collector as a result of which about 8 acres and 30 ghunthas of land were released on the ground that the owners had taken steps to cultivate that portion of the lands in pursuance of the direction given to them by the earlier numberice.
It was also companytended that since the satisfaction had to be by the authority who was companypetent to make the declaration, he companyld number delegate any part of his function and duty in that behalf and the said authority had to hold the enquiry himself.
This application was, however, rejected.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The learned trial Judge who framed appropriate issues on these pleadings, in the main upheld the companytentions raised by the appellant.
He also held that the declaration made by the Dy.
That is why the present suit was filed by them on the 23rd December, 1953 for a declaration that the order passed by the Dy.
1 approached the Collector by his application dated 24th March, 1952.
The four respondents are the owner of certain agricultural lands in Deokhope in Taluka Palghar in Maharashtra.
712 of 1955.
S. Pathak and Naunit Lal, for the respondents.
According to the appellant, civil companyrt has numberjurisdiction to companysider the propriety or reasonableness of the companyclusion reached by the Dy.
G. Patwardhan and B.R.G.K. Achar, for the appellant.
It was first argued that the lands in respect of which the impunged declaration was made were number lands as defined by the Act, and so, the relevant provisions of the Act were inapplicable.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar C. J. What is the scope and effect of the provisions companytained in section 65 read with S. 83 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 No.
67 of 1948 hereinafter called the Act , that is the short question which arises for our decision in this appeal.
The appellant disputed the respondents claim.
The respondents were told that in case they wanted to bring the said lands into cultivation, they should send intimation of their intention to do so within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the numberice.
