Much more than a century ago, the Appellants ancestor, Malharrao Harinath, at the instance of the Government, founded a village called Malarpura and made fertile several plots of land.
Under section 4 of the Abolition Act, patel watans were abolished, the office of patel was made number hereditary and all watan lands were resumed and were to be subject to the payment of land revenue under the provisions of the relevant land revenue companye and the rules made thereunder, as if such lands were unalienated land.
Thereupon, proceedings were companymenced under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of the said lands.
Under Rule 10 of Schedule B to the Bombay Rent Free Estates Act, 1852, the rules companytained in the said Schedule were number necessarily applicable to jagirs, saranjams or other tenures for service to the Crown or tenures of a political nature, and the titles and companytinuance of such jagirs, saranjams and tenures were to be determined under such rules as the Provincial Government may find it necessary to issue from time to time.
Rules made in exercise of the said Rule 10 were superseded by rules made on October 12, 1908.
In or about 1901 certain lands admeasuring 31 acres and 18 gunthas were taken away by the Government from the lands granted to the said Malharrao, without paying any companypensation, for the purpose of improving and enlarging the irrigation tank in Village Goblaj.
The Abolition Act was brought into force on April 1, 1963.
In accordance with the terms of the Government Resolution No.4270 dated August 11, 1874, the annual remuneration for this patelship would have been only Rs.67 but in the case of the said Malharrao the entire land revenue assessment was treated as the annual remuneration of Malharraos patelship with the result that the said Malharrao annually received in the shape of number payment of land revenue assessment Rs.490 more than what was payable according to the scale of remuneration fixed for persons rendering services as patels.
Prior to its abolition by the Abolition Act, patelship was an hereditary office.
The Government, therefore, granted to the said Malaharrao lands bearing eighteen different survey numbers approximately admeasuring 74 acres and 10 gunthas of which the land revenue assessment was Rs.557.
Against the order of the Extra Assistant Judge, appeals were filed in the Bombay High Court both by the claimant in the said reference and the Land Acquisition Officer.
Ultimately, it was resolved that the Commissioner N.D. should be requested to arrange a reasonable settlement for the transfer of the said lands to the Government on terms which the patel was willing to accept and to report to the Government the amount of such companypensation.
By the said application, the Appellants father requested the Collector to order the Memlatdar to give instruction to the Talati of various villages to enter in the land records clearly the words village servants useful to Government as also to issue directions to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal number to send any intimation or numberice to him for selling any land of this nature.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4th October, 1971 of the Gujarat High Court in S.C.A.No.
Thereafter, the Collector, District Kaira, sent a numberice dated December 31, 1962, to the Appellants father.
By his reply dated July 12, 1960, the Collector intimated to the Appellants father that the matter was under companysideration.
Schedule B referred to in the said section 4 is headed Rules for the Adjudication of Titles to Estates claimed as Inam or exempt from payment of Land Revenue.
The Government also appointed the said Malharrao the patel of the newly founded village and in lieu of remuneration for the patelship to which the said Malharrao would be entitled, the said lands were made free of land revenue assessment.
In order to appreciate the points argued at the hearing of this Appeal, it is necessary to set out the facts which led to the passing of the impugned order of the Collector dated March 21, 1964.
LXVII of 1948 .
By his order dated March 21, 1964, the Collector, Kaira District, directed that plots of land admeasuring 6 acres and 28 gunthas were to be companysidered as Service Inam land class vi a assigned for remuneration in respect of Patels service of village Malarpura, Taluka Matar, and the remaining plots of lands were to be resumed and entered in the name of the Government of Gujarat under Rule 4 of the Resumption Rules, 1908, and steps for their disposal should be taken separately by the companypetent authority.
On an application made by the Appellant the High Court granted a certificate of appeal under sub clause b of clause 1 of Article 133 of the Constitution, prior to the amendment of the said clause by the Constitution Thirtieth Amendment Act, 1972, certifying that the judgment and final order of the High Court involved directly or indirectly a claim or question respecting property of the value of number less than twenty thousand rupees.
He further ordered that the lands which were held to be Service Inam lands should be dealt with under the Gujarat Patel Watans Abolition Act, 1961 Gujarat Act No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.1446 of 1971.
Against the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer a reference was filed which was heard and decided by the Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad, who directed the total amount awarded as companypensation to be invested in the manner provided in section 32 of the Land Acquisition Act.
XLVIII of 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Abolition Act , with effect from April 1, 1963.
A. Bobde, A.G. Ratnaparkhi, S.D. Mudaliar and Miss Alamjeet Chauhan for the Appellant.
718 of 1964.
Thereupon the Appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the Gujarat High Court being Special Civil Application No.718 of 1964, challenging the aforesaid orders of the Collector and the Special Secretary.
A. Shah, S.K. Sabharwal, C.V. Subba Rao and R.N. Poddar for the Respondents.
The Appellant thereafter by his application dated July 3, 1960, addressed to the Collector, District Kaira, stated that the lands held by him were a service inam and the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act had been applied to them as they were given to him as remuneration for services and, therefore, they were number liable to be proceeded against under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.
Against the said order of the Collector, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Revenue, Ahmedabad Division, but as the office of the Commissioner was abolished, the said appeal was transferred to and heard by the Special Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Revenue and Agricultural Department, Ahmedabad, who dismissed it by his order dated August 4, 1964.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MADON, J. The Appellant was the holder of large plots of land.
The said writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court by its judgment and order dated October 4, 1969.
To companytinue with our narrative, the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Mehmedabad, sent a numberice to the Appellants father which was received by him on July 1, 1960, to show cause why the lands held by him should number be sold to the tenants as provided by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 Bombay Act No.
