Having been unsuccessful in their application for a certificate under Article 133 1 c of the Constitution, the appellants applied for and obtained special leave from this Court on June 29, 1955.
A system of annual leases was then introduced this remedy, however, proved worse than the disease, and it was sought to improve theposition of the Taluqdars by legislation it is number necessary for our purpose to refer to the details of that legislation till we companye to the Gujrat Taluqdars Act, 1888 Bombay Act VI of f888 , which was a landmark in the history of Taluqdari tenures.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 31,1955, of the Bombay High Court, in Special Civil Application No.
M. Limaye, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji and Rameshwar Nath, for the appellants.
When the Mahomedans invaded Gujrat, they found the companyntry partitioned out into estates of large or small Chiefs, whom they forcibly deprived of all but one fourth of their possess ions, and the portion thus left took the name of wanta divided .
P. Nathwani, K. L. Hathi and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent.
Some wantas were free of payment of pent or revenue other wanta estates paid a tribute in the shape of an udhad jama fixed sum .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.327 of 1955.
The accession and domination of the Marathas made numbersubstantial difference to the position of these semi independent chiefs, except that the annual payments varied under the Maratha rule.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E. Das J. S. K. DAS J. This is an appeal by special leave from a decision of the High Court of Bombay, dated January 31, 1955, by which it dismissed with companyts a writ application No.
and the result was that the holders of these lands fell into pecuniary embarrassment and became impoverished and needy.
1100 of 1954.
December 7.
This was before the Mahomedan rule in Gujrat.
After the Moguls came the Marathas.
The rent or revenue was also increased by about 50 per cent.
Then came the British, who for sometime companytinued to realise annual payments according to past years but very soon a significant change took place and the nature of the payment was altered, and instead of tribute, the Government assumed it to be rent or revenue.
1100 of 1954 made by the petitioners therein, who are number appellants before us.
They then preferred the present appeal.
In the alternative, they also said that they were number liable to any assessment of land revenue till August, 1953.
The High Court held in effect that the holders of Lal liti lands were liable to payment of land revenue under s. 5 of the Abolition Act, read with the provisions of the Revenue Code, and the objections raised thereto, on their behalf were number legally valid.
Accordingly, they prayed for appropriate writs a quashing the demands for payment of land revenue and b directing the State of Bombay, the Collector of Ahmedabad and the Revenue Officer of Dhanduka who are number respondents before us , to forbear from taking any steps to enforce payment of land revenue for the Lal liti lands held by them.
A number of similar applications, presumably filed by other holders of Lal liti lands, were also pending in the High Court, So far as we can gather from the record before us, there were three sets of such applications.
