247 measuring 100 acres and 30 guntas situated at village Kithiyakhad.
The trial companyrt decreed the said regular Civil Suit No.
He filed a suit for declaration and for possession that he was the owner of suit land in Survey No.
14,450 per annum instead of 19,200 per annum as previously companymunicated to you.
The letter Ex.
Both the issues were answered in favour of the original plaintiff holding that five villages of Umeta were of the private ownership of the original plaintiff as Talukdar he was the owner of the wanta situated in Umeta and the entire land bearing Survey No.
185/53, the appellate companyrt in para 4 has recorded thus During the arguments, the learned Government Pleader companyceded that the plaintiff was the owner of Talukdari village Umeta and No.
185/53.
Hence, the ex ruler filed Civil Suit O.S. No.
410 was a waste land and, therefore, it vested in the Government.
Further, it was held that the land bearing Survey No.
I am to request you to acknowledge the receipt of this letter and companyy of the inventory enclosed herewith.
410 is proved to be of the ownership of the plaintiff?
In the judgment, the trial companyrt recorded that five villages in the State of Umeta were private properties of the original plaintiff.
By the same order, it also declared that the remaining 590 acres and 30 guntas in Survey No.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties in Regular Civil Suit No.
By this, it followed that the land bearing Survey No.
The Government transferred 560 acres out of this land to the District Panchyat, Kheda.
The relevant issues which are required to be seen for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are issue number.
185/53 and declared that the original plaintiff was the full owner of 30 acres of land and ordered for delivery of possession to him.
In the present suit O.S. No.
The defendant State filed second appeal against the judgment and decree passed in the said appeal.
410 it was number waste land it did number vest in the Government and that the order dated 1.4.1952 vesting the land in the Government was null and void.
185/53 companycludes the case against the respondent State inasmuch as in the said judgment, appellants are held to be the owners and that the land in question did number vest under Section 6 of the Act the said judgment operated as res judicata against the respondent State in the present case the trial companyrt was right in holding so learned Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court companymitted error in reversing the decree of the trial companyrt.
410 formed part of the Wanta of Umeta.
5 of 1970 companytending that the transfer of the land by the Government in favour of the District panchyat was wrong as it belonged to him and Government had numberauthority to transfer the land when the said land had number vested in the Government.
Whether the suit land for uncultivated land when the Bombay Talukdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949 came into operation?
In the first appeal No.
410 did number vest in the Government under Section 6 of the Act.
The companypetent authority, after making enquiry by the order dated 27th November, 1958 held that Mahendrsinhji was the owner of the said portion of the land the original plaintiff did number take any action against the said order dated 27th November, 1958 declaring 590 acres of Survey No.
The Government of Bombay filed first appeal No.
Whether the suit land is waste land?
In the said judgment, it is numbericed that although several companytentions were urged by the State in the trial companyrt resisting the suit of the plaintiff but in the second appeal the only point that was urged was that whether the lower appellate companyrt had companymitted an error of law in forming the opinion as regards the category of the land in dispute.
185/1953 against the State seeking declaration that he was the owner of 30 acres of land which was part of Survey No.
60/1960 filed against the decree in Regular Civil Suit No.
The State Government after making enquiry under Section 37 2 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code by its order dated 27.11.1958 held that Mahendersinhji was the owner of that piece of land measuring 147 acres 15 guntas.
Hence, this appeal by the legal representatives of the original plaintiff, as already stated above.
The State of Gujarat filed appeal to the High Court which was dismissed.
The trial companyrt, by its judgment dated March 30, 1971 declared that he was the owner of the said land.
Hence, the original plaintiff having failed to take action for nearly 12 years from the date of the said order, the relief of ownership claimed by him in O.S. No.
129 letter dated January 31, 1949 written by the Collector and Chief Administrator, Kaira to the plaintiff clearly mentions that the matter regarding the five Talukdari village in Borsad Taluka had been referred to Government for orders.
In this view of the matter, the lower appellate companyrt has formed the opinion that the disputed land does number fall within one of the three categories specified in Section 6 of the Act as claimed by the defendant State.
Issue Nos.
In Civil Appeal No.
60 of 1960, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in the said suit No.
He was the ex ruler of Umeta State and he was also a registered Talukdar and owner of five villages, namely, Umeta, Kuthiyakhad, Sankhyad, Anmrol and Asarms.
The original plaintiff filed LPA before the High Court questioning the validity and companyrectness of the order made by the learned Single Judge.
In that suit, reliefs of declaration, possession and permanent injunction were sought.
The first appeal filed by the respondent against the decree of the trial companyrt was allowed by learned Single Judge of the High Court, reversing the decree passed by the trial companyrt.
5/1970, learned Single Judge of the High Court held that the suit O.S. No.
In the said appeal, the following three points arose for determination Whether the suit land is a part of the bed of Mahi River?
128 dated April 11, 1950 clearly admitted the five Talukdari villages as the private property of the plaintiff.
The trial companyrt also recorded a finding that the original plaintiff was the owner of the Wanta situated in Umeta and that Survey No.
410 from the possession of the plaintiff on the ground that it was a waste land and, therefore, vested in the Government under Section 6 of the Act.
Bombay Castle, dated 11th April, 1950 My dear Thakore Saheb, I am to say that the inventory of private property securities and cash balances furnished by you in accordance with Article 3 of the instrument of merger executed by you has been companysidered.
The land bearing Survey No.
A companyy of the inventory as finally accepted, is attached for your information.
The High Court, by the impugned judgment, as already stated above, dismissed the L.P.A. affirming the order of the learned Single Judge.
As regards the five Talukdari villages claimed by you as your private property, I am to say that Government has agreed to companycede your claim to these villages but as the revenues of these villages have been included in the average annual revenues of Umeta State for purposes of calculation of your privy purse, the same i.e. the revenues of these villages have number been excluded from the average revenues of the State and your privy purse has been finally fixed at Rs.
This Court in paragraph 4 has held thus We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and have thoroughly perused the record.
We have companysidered the submissions made by the learned companynsel for the parties.
The State of Bombay on 1.4.1952 took possession of about 30 acres out of the land in Survey No.
185/1953 was only in relation to 30 acres of land bearing Survey No.
5/1970, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, several issues were framed.
410 companyprised of large area 742 acres and 32 guntas.
The State Government pursued the matter further by filing second appeal in the High Court of Gujarat.
All the three points were answered in the negative against the defendant State.
The first appellate companyrt dismissed the appeal on 16.7.1962.
When the said suit was pending, Mahendrsinhji, brother of the original plaintiff, made a claim of ownership to the extent of 147 acres and 15 guntas of land in the same Survey No.
The High Court, by its order dated 12.3.1970, dismissed the second appeal affirming the findings recorded by the two companyrts below.
The High Court by its judgment dated 12.3.1970 dismissed the second appeal also.
5/1970 filed in respect of rest of 560 acres of land bearing Survey No.
The land bearing Survey No.
The Bombay Talukdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949 for short the Act came into force on 15.8.1950.
34/69.
5/1970 being inconsistent with the order of 27th November, 1958 was number maintainable and the suit companyld number have been decreed.
The Division Bench of the High Court, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the appeal companycurring with the findings recorded by learned Single Judge.
A finding was recorded that Government failed to prove that suit land was part of the bed of Mahi river or that the suit land was waste land or the suit land was uncultivated on the date when the Act came into Force.
The Government then vide Ex.
102 merger agreement dated May 24, 1948 has been placed on record which clearly mentioned that the plaintiff as the Talukdar of Umeta State was entitled to the full ownership use and enjoyment of all the private properties.
After a detailed discussion, the High Court companycluded thus This number having done, the lower appellate companyrt came to the companyclusion that the defendant State failed to show that the disputed land was river bed land.
410 was within the limits of village Umeta.
The original plaintiff in the present case namely, Shri Jagdevsinhji was the plaintiff in that case also.
An inventory of such private properties which formed part of such merger agreement clearly mentioned five Talukadari villages in Borsad Taluka of Kaira district.
The decisions submitted therein have the approval of the Government of India in the Ministry of State.
4 and 6 read as under Whether the five Talukdari villages of Umeta, Kuthiskhad, Sankhyad, Anmrol and Asarms are of plaintiffs private ownership as alleged by plaintiff?
914/77 filed against the judgment and decree in O.S. No.
Challenging the action of the Government, the original plaintiff filed regular Suit No.
Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the Wanta situated in Umeta?
410 forms part of the Wanta of Umeta?
4, 5 and 6 which read Whether the plaintiff proves that his ownership of the five villages mentioned in para 2 of the plaint, was acknowledged and admitted by the Government?
410 formed part of wanta of Umeta.
The trial companyrt answered these issues in the affirmative in favour of the original plaintiff.
Pursuant to the decree passed by the trial companyrt, possession of 30 acres of land was handed over to the original plaintiff on 5.12.1969 in Execution Application No.
185/53, as many as 17 issues were framed.
410 of Umeta was number hit by the principles of res judicata on the ground that the subject matter of the dispute in O.S. No.
By virtue of Merger Agreement, this land was also given to ex ruler as Talukdar.
410 belonged to the original plaintiff and that the suit had been rightly decreed.
410 is of Wanta land of Umeta village?
Whether it is proved that Survey No.
Whether Survey No.
826/62 decided on 12.3.1970 by the High Court affirming the decree made in O.S. No.
In that case, he was companycerned with village Kothiyakhad.
410 and number in regard to the remaining area of the land.
The trial companyrt decreed the said suit.
Thereafter, they filed appeal in this Court.
410 to be Government wasteland.
Shivaraj V. Patil J. The appellants are the legal representatives of Padhiar Jagdevsinhji Ramsinhji who was ex ruler of erstwhile State of Umeta which companyprised of five villages including Umeta.
According to him, the lands of these villages belonged to him.
