1224 of 1973 under Art.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated 31 1 1976 of the Gujarat High Court in S.C.A. No.
Thereupon a numberice under S. 37 2 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code for the purpose of holding an inquiry into the rights of the respondent to mines and mineral products of the said villages claimed by the respondent wag served upon him but the respondent raised a preliminary objection that such inquiry wag misconceived and incompetent in view of the determination made under s. 2 4 i of the Act and having regard to the provisions of S. 10 of the Act his rights, to mines and mineral products were expressly saved the Collector of Sabarkantha appellant No.
These reliefs sought by the respondent were resisted by the State of Gujarat and the Collector the appellants before us principally on the ground that the inquiry under s. 37 2 of the Land Revenue Code into the rights to mines and mineral products in the said villages claimed by the respondent was necessary and proper and companyld number be said to be companycluded by the determination made under s. 2 4 1 of the Act by the companypetent authority.
227 of the Constitution to the, Gujarat High Court and writ of certiorari quashing the order dated February 23, 1973 and a direction restraining the Collector from further proceeding with the inquiry under S. 37 2 of the Land Revenue Code were sought.
The appellants seek to challenge the said judgment and order of the Gujarat High Court in this appeal.
2 over ruled the preliminary objection and by order dated February 23, 1973, directed that the inquiry shall proceed and the respondent was directed to produce his evidence in support of his claim on a date that would be fixed and intimated to him.
L. Singhvi, N. D. Bhatt and K. J. John for the Respondent.
According to the respondent by these grants parvanas read together he was given full proprietary rights in the soil of the said villages, that is to say, it was a proprietary Jagir that was granted to him by the then Ruler.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by TULZAPURKAR, J. The main question raised in this appeal by special leave at the instance of State, of Gujarat, and the Collector of Sabarkantha against the Gujarat High Courts judgment and order dated January 30/31, 1975 allowing the writ petition of the respondent is whether once the companypetent authority under s. 2 4 i of the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas Jagirs Abolition Act, 1953 Bombay Act No.
Admittedly, on the companying into force of the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas Jagirs Abolition Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as the Act i.e. with effect from respondents Daljitgarh Jagir stood abolished and all his rights in the Jagir villages, save as expressly provided by or under the Act, were extinguished and the respondent became entitled to companypensation under s. 11 of the Act.
A similar application, companytaining similar request, was also made by the respondent to the Mamlatdar Taluka Idar on October 4, 1971.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
116 dated October 27, 1933, the respondent Maharaj Shri Amar Singji Himatsingji was granted Daljitgarh Jagir companyprising of 10 villages mentioned in the said order in jivarak for maintenance by the then Ruler of Idar by another Hajur Order No.
It further appears that pursuant to an order dated November 24, 1959, passed by the Mamlatdar, Idar, an entry was made on June 18, 1963, in the relevant revenue records village Form No.
Aggrieved by this order passed by the Collector on February 23, 1973, the respondent preferred a writ petition Special Civil Application No.
1898 of 1976.
T. Desai, R. M. Mehta and M. N. Shroff for the Appellant.
The facts giving rise to the said question are these By Hajur Order No.
It appears that for the purpose of implementing the provisions of the Act the companypetent authority Collector of District Sabarkantha held an inquiry into the question whether the respondents Jigir was proprietary involving any right or interest in the soil or number proprietary involving mere assignment of land revenue or rent due to Government under s. 2 4 i of the Act and having regard to the documentary and other evidence led before it, the companypetent authority by its order dated September 8, 1959, held that the Daljitgarh Jagir of the respondent was a proprietary jagir.
964 dated November 21, 1947, 14 villages including Kapoda and Isarwada were granted in jivarak to the respondent by the Ruler of Idar in substitution of the villages mentioned in the previous two orders.
According to the respondent since the entries made in the revenue records in respect of his rights to mines and mineral products were number sufficient and proper and though the Mamlatdars order dated November 24, 1959 was in respect of two villages, namely, Kapoda and Isarwada, the relevant entry in respect of greval and stones had been made only in regard to village Kapoda, he by his application dated October 11, 1968, requested the Collector, Sabarkantha, to issue necessary orders to the Mamlatdar, Idar, to make appropriate entries regarding his rights in the minerals in village Isarwada.
807 dated January 12, 1934, the respondent was given a further grant in jivarak of 3 villages mentioned in that order with effect from October 1, 1933 by yet another Hajur Order No.
6 of one of the villages Kapoda companyprised in the Jagir to the effect that the respondents right to take out gravel and stones was recognised but the right relating to excavation of mica had been reserved and retained by the Government this entry was only certified on March 30, 1965.
1224 of 1973.
