Had he number accepted those companyditions, it was likely that the government would have resumed the grant under the Saurashtra Land Resumption Ordinance No.
It having been decided on enquiry that the exchange was reasonable, the grant is accepted subject however to the liability of the grantee a to pay 12 per cent as assessment b to see that numbercultivator shall be evicted from the landThe grantee K. S. Digvijaysinghji may kindly be informed of this assessment charge and the other companytents of this letter and may be put in possession of the land and allowed to be retained by him subject to the liabilities specified in this letter.
In the meantime the appellant had applied to the Mamlatdar, Kalawad, for an order of allotment of land for personal cultivation under Section 18 19?
The letter stated According to the Jamnagar Conference decision as this grant was an exchange, it was acceptable after verification regarding reasonableness of the exchange.
The tenants claimed that they had chav rights and that in any event the appellant was number entitled to eject them.
The lands in Kharedi are the subject matter of dispute in this litigation.
The Mamlatdar allowed the application and allotted to the appellant lands out of the holding of four tenants.
Though the appellant was number a party to the arrangement, he was aware of and accepted the arrangement and the companyditions upon which his grant was companyfirmed by the Government of India.
The grant to the appellant was questioned the Saurashtra Government.
Thereafter at a companyference called the Jamnagar Conference, it was arranged between Narendra singh ji and the Government of India that the lands in Kharedi should be regarded as lawfully granted to the appellant subject to the companydition that the grantee would number evict the cultivators from the land.
The Act was passed for the improvement of land revenue administration and for ultimately putting an end to the Girasdari system.
On February 17, 1948 the grant was recorded in the Hak Patrak of the Virpur State.
The application was resisted by the tenants who are the respondents in this appeal.
An appeal from his order was dismissed by the Deputy Collector, Eastern Division, Halar.
On June 1, 1947 Narendra singh ji the then ruler of the Virpur State granted certain agricultural lands situate within the State to the appellant, his paternal uncle.
On a revision application filed by the tenants the Bombay Revenue Tribunal set aside these orders and dismissed the application filed under Section 19.
By a numberification dated July 20, 1954 the Saurashtra Government clarified the earlier numberification stating that the appellant was a Girasdar subject to the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, i. e., the companydition imposed by the government at the time of his recognition that he cannot evict the tenants.
On January 29, 1954 the Government of Sau rashtra issued a numberification under Sections 15 2 215 ?
The appellant then applied to the High Court of Bombay at Rajkot under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the companyrectness of the order of the Revenue Tribunal.
The arrangement was set out in a letter dated November 2, 1949 from the officer on special duty Integration Political Department, to the Secretary, Revenue Department, United State of Saurashtra.
The Saurashtra Land Reforms Act came into force on September 1, 1951.
On March 8, 1948 the administration of the Virpur State was assumed by the United State of Saurashtra.
On February 11, 1948 Narendra singh ji and the appellant effected an exchange under which the appellant returned the lands at Matiya and Guda to Narendra singh ji and in lieu thereof was granted certain lands in Kharedf.
S. Bachawat, J. This appeal raises questions of interpretation of certain provisions of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act 1951 Act No.
XXV of 1951 .
84 of 1949 which came into force on January 13, 1950.
