A. Shah and M. N. Shroff for the Appellant.
In its opinion, the expressions waste lands and uncultivated lands, therefore, did number companyer grass lands on hilly tracts which by their very nature are incapable of cultivation, but which are number useless so as to be number capable of any use.
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 5 11 1968 of the Gujarat High Court in S.C.A. Nos.
The respondents are the erstwhile taluqdars or inamdars what was known as Ghogha Mahal, which number forms part of the Bhavnagar district.
In the present appeals, certain facts are numberlonger in dispute.
The Mahalkari, Ghogha Mahal by his order dated October 28, 1958 held on this evidence that the lands companyld number be treated as waste lands or uncultivated lands, and since the respondents were in possession thereof, they became the occupants.
to see that unauthorised pasturing by cattle brought on land or trespassing on it did number destroy the growing grass, but that it grew to full stature so as to give a fair and full yield.
There were vast stretches of hilly tracts described as Dunger, which were incapable of cultivation, but on which there was spontaneous growth of grass.
When operation for cutting of the grass used to companymence, the stubs were number cut off but were allowed to remain intact so that the next year after The rains, the grass would grow naturally again.
The Collector, Bhavnagar, in exercise of his suo motu powers of revision under s. 211 of the Code by his order dated February 28, 1961 set aside the orders of the Mahalkari and held in all these twenty seven cases, that since the lands in question were number being cultivated by taluqdars or inamdars, they must, by reason of Explanation to s. 6 of the Taluqdari Abolition Act and Explanation to s. 7 of the Inams Abolition Act, be treated to be unoccupied lands, and, therefore, the lands vest in the Government.
These lands formed part of their taluqdari estates or inams.
It was also in evidence that companysiderable effort and expenses had to be incurred by them for securing the income of this grass i.e., by keeping watchmen etc.
Agreeing with the Revenue Tribunal, the High Court held that there was evidence that the lands in dispute were number lying desolate, abandoned or barren with numbervegetation, but were, in fact, productive lands, in the sense that grass grew naturally and so, they companyld number be regarded as waste lands, although they were wrongly recorded as such.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
It also held that the hilly tracts on which grass grew naturally, by their very nature were unfit for cultivation and, therefore, companyld number be treated as uncultivated lands.
In an enquiry held under s. 3 2 , the Mahalkari examined the claimants individually, the village talatis and the relevant entries in the records of rights which showed that the taluqdars and inamdars were deriving income from the grass growing on the lands.
The State Government of Gujarat filed twenty seven writ petitions in the High Court for quashing the orders of the Revenue Tribunal.
It appears that the lands were recorded as Kharaba in the record of rights and, therefore, companysequent upon the abolition of taluqdari rights by the Taluqdari Abolition Act and with the Abolition of inams under the Personal Inams Abolition Act, the lands were recorded as having vested in The Government.
V. Patel, I. N. Shroff, P. V. Hathi and H. S. Parihar for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN J. These twenty seven appeals, by special leave, directed against judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated November.
2411 2427 and 2431 2440 of 1969.
The short question involved in these matters relates to interpretation of s. 6 of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949, the Taluqdari Abolition Act, and s. 7 of the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1952, the Personal Inams Abolition Act.
They used to sell the grass growing on these lands and it was a definite source of income to them.
Thereupon, the respondents made separate claims before the Mahalkari, Ghogha Mahal, seeking a declaration under s. 37 2 of the Bombay I and Revenue Code, 1879 that the lands were neither vacant lands number uncultivated lands and being in their possession, they become the occupants thereof.
283 286 of 1966 and 287 296 and 300 309/66.
It relied on the Explanation to the two sections and observed that it companytemplates only those lands which companyld be cultivated but which were left fallow and uncultivated for a companytinuous period of three years.
The Revenue Tribunal, however, by its two orders dated June 19, 1962 and March 26, 1965, reversed the order of the Collector and restored that of the Mahalkari holding the respondents to be the occupants of the lands in question.
5 1968 raise a companymon question and are, therefore, disposed of by this companymon judgment.
A portion of the grass lands were also kept apart by the respondents for the grazing of their cattle by fencing of the area.
570/63, 629, and 634/63.
