# 19!H -·- Fa1ma H4it .lfli Moh-' and Others v. Th• 8141# of Btm6izy

- **Citation:** [1951] 1 S.C.R. 266
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1951
- **Bench:** SAmo FAZL ALI, Mehr Chand Mahajan, MuKHERJEA, Chandrasekhara Aiyar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/19-h-fa1ma-h4it-lfli-moh-and-others-v-th-8141-of-btm6izy-79
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, s. 48-Rules under the
Code, r. 92-Agricultural land used for other purposes-CoUectOf"•
d•IY to alter assessment-Mere confirmation of Co/lecwr's tmltr
rt'fusing to
re-assess-Whether
amounts
to direction
"' Ml
otltnwist!-Rig/,t to re4Jsess•nt.
I
~C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
llule 92 of the rulcis issued under the Bombay Land · Revenue
Code,
1879, provided that when land assessed for
purposes of
agriculture only is subsequently used for any purpose
unconnected with agriculture,
the assessment upon the land so used shall
unless
otherwise directed
by the Government be
altered under
s. 48 (2) by the Collector in accordance with rr. 81 to 87 : Held,
that as the rule imposes an imperative duty on the Collector to
alter
the
assessment, the
power which has been
given to
the
governmeni to give directions to the Collector . not to act in
accordance with the
imperative
pr<.>visions of the rule has to be
exercised in clear and unambiguous terms as it affects civil rights
of the
persons concerncc.i and the decision that the power has
been exercised must be notified in the usual manner.
Where the Government .did not pass any resolution or issue
any directions to that effect but merely ccinfirmed on appeal
an
order of the
C<.>llector
rejecting an
application to
assess
nonagricultural assessment on agricultural lands which had been used
for building purposes : Held, that the confirmation of the
Collector's order by the Government did not amount to a direction
te act otherwise within the mcaninJi: of r. 92 and the applicant
was
entitled to have the assessment on the lands altered under
s. 48 (2) in accordance with fr. 81 to 87 as laid down in r. 92.
CIVIL
APPELLATE
JuR1so1cnoN
Appeal
(Civil
Appeal No. 28 of 1950) from a judgment and decree of
the
High
Court of Judkature at
Bombay dated.
19th March, 1945, in Appeals Nos. 68 and 190 of 1942.
H. D. Banaji (V. R. Desai, with him) for the
appellants.
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India (G. N.
Joshi, with him) for the respondent.
1951. February 5.
The judgment o£ the Court was
delivered by
MAHAJAN J.-This is an appeal from a judJtment of
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay modifying
the decree of the trial court and decreeing partially
the plaintiff's suit.
The
appellants
are the legal
representatives
of the
original plaintiff Haii
Ali
Mohamed Haji Cassum.
The State of Bombay is the
respondent.
·
The facts giving rise to this controversy, brieflv
stated, are as follows :-
35
19!H
-·-
Fa1ma H4it
.lfli Moh-'
and Others
v.
Th• 8141# of
Btm6izy.
Mahaja~ j.
1951
FatmaHaj;
AliMoham•d
.tmd Othtrt
v.
Th1StaJ1 qf
BornllaJ
Mahoj .. J.
268
SUPREME COURT REPORTS.
[1951 J
Village Dahisar originally formed part of the Malad
Estate comprising in all eight villages. The said estate
was conveyed by the East India Company to two
Dady brothers for valuable consideration by a deed of
indenture
dated the 25th
January, 1819.
By
that
conveyance all the lands in the eight villages were
conveyed absolutely to the said purchasers and it was
covenanted by the
Company
that the
purchasers,
their heirs and assigns shall peaceably and quietly
enjoy the said villages and receive and take the rents
and profits thereof without any hindrance or interruption from the said Company.
By a sale deed dated
the 13th December, 1900, Haji Ca.ssum, father of the
plaintiff, purchased the village of Dahisar from its
proprietors for a price of Rs.
1,30,000 and after his
death the plaintiff became the proprietor thereof and
as such received rents and assessment from the ·tenants
and holders of the lands in the village according to the
rights prevailing
~der the . survey settlement which.
had- taken place in the village about the year 1864-65.
In the year 1879 the . Bombay Land. Revenue Code
was enacted.
Section 48 of the Code is in these
terms :-
"48. ( 1) The land revenue leviable on any land
under the
provisions of this Act shall be assessed, or
shall be deemed to have been assessed, as the case may
be, wi

## Text

l~l
Ari• S>atli
v,
x., •• , $in(jh
ONIQl!wr1.
1951
Morell 2.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1951)
that the common ancestor owned the land and that his
sons got it from him ht inheritance in equal shares.
The District Judge was obviously wrong when he
decreed the plaintiff's suit even with reference to the
lands in Kadduwal conceded to be non-ancestral and
the land in Khasra No. 2408 measuring 4 bighas and
16 biswas, which was not in the possession of the two
sons Jodha Singh and Jai
Singh.
He was equally
wrong in
holding tHat the customary law which
governed the parties did not permit the owner to will
away ':my portion of the property, whether ancestral
or self-acquired ; this is contrary to section 7 of Punjab
Act II of 1920, which is in these terms :
"Notwithstanding anything to
the
contrary contained in section 5, Pqniab Laws Act, . 1872, no person
shall contest any alienation of non-ancestral immovable property or any appointment of an heir to such
property on the
ground that such
alienation or
appointment is contrary to custom."
No other point arises in this appeal which fails and
is dismissed with costs. in all the courts.
Appeal dismissed.
Agent for the appellant : Ganpat Rai.
Agent for the respondents : S. P. -Verma.
FATMA HAJI ALI MOHAMMAD HAJI
AND OTHERS
"·
THE STATE OF BOMBAY.
[SAmo FAZL ALI, MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN,
MuKHERJEA and CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ.]
Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, s. 48-Rules under the
Code, r. 92-Agricultural land used for other purposes-CoUectOf"•
d•IY to alter assessment-Mere confirmation of Co/lecwr's tmltr
rt'fusing to
re-assess-Whether
amounts
to direction
"' Ml
otltnwist!-Rig/,t to re4Jsess•nt.
I
~C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
llule 92 of the rulcis issued under the Bombay Land · Revenue
Code,
1879, provided that when land assessed for
purposes of
agriculture only is subsequently used for any purpose
unconnected with agriculture,
the assessment upon the land so used shall
unless
otherwise directed
by the Government be
altered under
s. 48 (2) by the Collector in accordance with rr. 81 to 87 : Held,
that as the rule imposes an imperative duty on the Collector to
alter
the
assessment, the
power which has been
given to
the
governmeni to give directions to the Collector . not to act in
accordance with the
imperative
pr<.>visions of the rule has to be
exercised in clear and unambiguous terms as it affects civil rights
of the
persons concerncc.i and the decision that the power has
been exercised must be notified in the usual manner.
Where the Government .did not pass any resolution or issue
any directions to that effect but merely ccinfirmed on appeal
an
order of the
C<.>llector
rejecting an
application to
assess
nonagricultural assessment on agricultural lands which had been used
for building purposes : Held, that the confirmation of the
Collector's order by the Government did not amount to a direction
te act otherwise within the mcaninJi: of r. 92 and the applicant
was
entitled to have the assessment on the lands altered under
s. 48 (2) in accordance with fr. 81 to 87 as laid down in r. 92.
CIVIL
APPELLATE
JuR1so1cnoN
Appeal
(Civil
Appeal No. 28 of 1950) from a judgment and decree of
the
High
Court of Judkature at
Bombay dated.
19th March, 1945, in Appeals Nos. 68 and 190 of 1942.
H. D. Banaji (V. R. Desai, with him) for the
appellants.
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India (G. N.
Joshi, with him) for the respondent.
1951. February 5.
The judgment o£ the Court was
delivered by
MAHAJAN J.-This is an appeal from a judJtment of
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay modifying
the decree of the trial court and decreeing partially
the plaintiff's suit.
The
appellants
are the legal
representatives
of the
original plaintiff Haii
Ali
Mohamed Haji Cassum.
The State of Bombay is the
respondent.
·
The facts giving rise to this controversy, brieflv
stated, are as follows :-
35
19!H
-·-
Fa1ma H4it
.lfli Moh-'
and Others
v.
Th• 8141# of
Btm6izy.
Mahaja~ j.
1951
FatmaHaj;
AliMoham•d
.tmd Othtrt
v.
Th1StaJ1 qf
BornllaJ
Mahoj .. J.
268
SUPREME COURT REPORTS.
[1951 J
Village Dahisar originally formed part of the Malad
Estate comprising in all eight villages. The said estate
was conveyed by the East India Company to two
Dady brothers for valuable consideration by a deed of
indenture
dated the 25th
January, 1819.
By
that
conveyance all the lands in the eight villages were
conveyed absolutely to the said purchasers and it was
covenanted by the
Company
that the
purchasers,
their heirs and assigns shall peaceably and quietly
enjoy the said villages and receive and take the rents
and profits thereof without any hindrance or interruption from the said Company.
By a sale deed dated
the 13th December, 1900, Haji Ca.ssum, father of the
plaintiff, purchased the village of Dahisar from its
proprietors for a price of Rs.
1,30,000 and after his
death the plaintiff became the proprietor thereof and
as such received rents and assessment from the ·tenants
and holders of the lands in the village according to the
rights prevailing
~der the . survey settlement which.
had- taken place in the village about the year 1864-65.
In the year 1879 the . Bombay Land. Revenue Code
was enacted.
Section 48 of the Code is in these
terms :-
"48. ( 1) The land revenue leviable on any land
under the
provisions of this Act shall be assessed, or
shall be deemed to have been assessed, as the case may
be, with reference to the ,use of the land-
( a) .for the ,purpose of agriculture,
(b) for the purpose of building, and
( c) for a purpose other th'an agriculture or building.
(2) Where land assessed for use for any purpose is
used for any other purpose, the assessment fix~d under
the provisions of this Act upon such land shall, notwithstanding that the term for which such assessment
may have been fixed has not expired, be liable to be
altered and fixed at a different rate by such authority
and subject to such rules as the Provincial Government
may prescribe in this behalf .............. "
S;Ci:.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
269
After the Act came . into force, the Government drafted rules under the provisions of section 214 for promulgation.
The inamdars represented to the Government that the rules should be so framed as not to
prejudice their rights under the conveyances executed
by the Company in their favour. . The draft rules
were promulgated · by a notification issued on the 5th
June, 1907.
On that date, the Government adopted
a resolution ordering that the rules be promulgated
and also giving an assurance to the inamdars to the
following effect :-
"Government will, however, be prepared to amend
or abrogate these rules if they are found to be detrimental in any material respects to the interests of the
inamdars."
Rule 92 is one of the rules promulgated under the
provisions of the Act and it runs thus :-
"When land assessed for purposes of agriculture
only is subsequently used for any purpose unconnected
with agriculture the · assessment upon the land so used
shall, unless otherwise directed by Government, be
altered under sub-section (2) of section 48
by
the
collector in accordance with rules 81 to 87 inclu,sive." ·
On the 25th July, 1923, the plaintiff requested the
· Commissioner of
Bombay, Suburban District, for a
revision of the survey of Dahisar village.
He executed an agreement under the provisions of section 216
of the Bombay Land Revenue
Code and made a
formal application in that behalf as required by the
Code and the rules made thereunder.
The Commissioner by his letter dated the 14th March, 1925, authorised
the . extension of the provisions of chapters 8 · and 9 of
the Land Revenue Code to the village in question.
The plaintiff also
deposited the necessary expenses
required for the revision of the survey.
The revision
was made by. the Superintendent of the Land Records
who submitted his report to the Commissioner on the
15th December, 1926.
This report was sanctioned by
Government.
The .order
sanctioning
the
revised
~urvey was communicated to the plaintiff on the 23rd
1951
Fattna Hafi
A.Ii Moluzmltl
air40tlin1
v.
.Tiu Stall qf .
·Bombay,
rMahqjanj.
1951
/t...,.H'lfi
AliM•'-.•d
au ()th~s
V·,
Tiu Stal• qf
. BooU<y.
-
MaltajaoJ.
270
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
{1~11
December,
1927.
Under the
revised
survey the
assessment of Rs. 4,217 on the village lands was increased to Rs. 6,057-3-2, and the plaintiff from that
date started recovering the increased assessment from
the tenants of the lands in the village .
At the time of the revision of the survey it was
found that nine plots of land comprised in eleven field
numbers which were formerly agricultural had been
built . upon and these were being used for non-agricultural purposes.
The survey offi<:cr formed them
into a separate group and
~howed them as kharaba
and no assessment, either agricultural ot non-agricultural, was levied on these nine plots and the plaintiff
could not therefore recover any assessment in respect
of these plots after 1926.
On the 30th Apri~ 1934, he
requested
the Collector
to
assess
non-agricultural
assessment on these plots.
This request was refused
by the Collector on the 17th July,
1935, in these
terms :-
.
"With reference to your letter dated 30-4-1934, I
have the honour to state that I regret your request
~annot be granted."
·
It has to be observed that this refusal was in
con~
μ-avention of the provisions of rule 92 which imposes
on the Collector a duty to make alteration in the
assessment,
unless he has been directed to the contrary
by Government.
It was not denied that by the 17th
July, 1935, no such direction had been given to the
Collector by Government.
If the Collector had done
his duty as enjoined by rule 92, thjs lengthy and
'Unnecessary litigation might well have been avoided.
Against the order <>f the Collector the plaintiff appealed· to the Commissioner.
In hJs appeal he pointed
out that certain additional lands in the village had
been converted to non-agricultural uses subsequent to
the revision of the survey in 1926.
The Commissioner
declined to interfere.
This iiiformation was conveyed
by the Collector to the counsel for the plaintiff on the
22nd May, 1937.
Against tlie Commissioner's decision
the plaintifi appealed to the Governor in Council and
;.
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
271
on the 20th December, 1937, he received a copy of the
follomng communication from
Government to the
Commissioner :-
"The
undersigned presents
compliments to the
Commissioner, Northern Division, and with reference
to his letter, No. L. N. D. 3124, dated 20th April;
1936,
on the subject noted above, is directed to
invite his attention, to the orders issued in Government
Resolution, No. 5235/33,
dated 8th· March,
1937,
and
to
state that
Government confirm the
action of the Collector, Bombay Suburban District,
in refusing the Khot' s request for the levy of nonagricultural assessment in the village of Dahisar.
By order of the Governor in Council,
for Under Secretary to the Government of Bombay."
In order to find out whether there was any resolution of the Government as mentioned in the above
communication, during the pendency of the suit the
plaintiff issued the following
interrogatory to the
Government of the State of Bombay :-
"When was the decision, not to assess the lands
mentioned in Schedule II of the plaint and other lands
under rule 92,
referred to in para. · 8 of their written
statement arrived at by the Government ?
Produce a copy of the said decision which may
have been embodied in a Government resolution along
with the opinion of the
Government officers with
which Government may have concurred."
The answer given on behalf of the State Government
~.
to this question was as follows :-
" (8) Government Memorandum, Revenue Department, No.
5235-B/33, dated the 8th March,
1937,
confirmed the Collector's action in refusing the proprietor's request for the levy of non-agricultural assessment."
This answer indicates that the Government acting
under rule 92, neither adopted any resolution nor
issued any notification giving any directions to the ·
Collector contrary to the provisions contained · in that
4-l! S. C. India/68
1951
FtitmaHtiji
Ali Mohamed
and Others
v.
The Sta"qf
Bombay.
Mahajan].
1951
Faz,,.aHaji
Ali Mohamed
•nd 01/wrr
v.
ThiS<ate ef
Bombay.
Afa/laja•J.
272
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1951)
rule.
All that it did was to confirm the
Collectcx'~
order rejecting the request of the plaintiff for making
the assessment of non-agricultural lands in the village.
During the interval between 1927-37 a large number
of plots of land mentioned in schedule II were put to
non-agricultural uses by the tenants in possession of
them and a . number of buildings were constructed
thereupon.
The plaintiff having failed in persuading
the Government to make an assessment under rule 92
of such lands, after service of notice under section 80 ·of
the Code of Civil Procedure, instituted the present suit,
(a) for a declaration that he was entitled to have nonagricultural assessment made on all lands in the village
of Dahisar which were used or which may thereafter
be brought into use for purposes other than agricultural
and (b) for an order that the Collector of Bombay,
Suburban District be directed to determine the amount
of non-agricultural assessment on the lands mentioned
in schedules I and II of the plaint and to levy the
same under clause 2 of rule 96 and pay it to the
plaintiff, or in the alternative, to dire.ct the defendant
to issue a commission to the plaintiff under section 88
of the Land Revenue Code. Schedule I gave details
of the nine plots of land that had been converted into
non-agricultural use before the survey of 1926, while
schedule II gave details of those lands which since
1926 up to the date of the suit had been converted to
such use.
The plaintiff also claimed damages to the
extent of Rs. 120 as compensation fo,r loss · of agricultural assessment for six years in respect of lands
mentioned in schedule I and he claimed similar dama,.
ges to the extent of Rs. 300 for loss of non-agricultural assessment in respect of the other lands.
He also
claimed future damages and costs.
The suit was resisted by the State Government .on a
number of grounds.
It was contended that it was
barred under section 4 ( c) of the Revenue Jurisdiction
Act and under article 14 of the Indian Limitation Act.
On the merits it was pleaded that the action of the
wrvey officer and the Collector in refusing to levy
non-agricultural :issessment on lands contained in the
-
S.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
273
two schedules was lawful and proper and t;hat the dvil
court could not question the discretion of the Government in such matters.
The trial Judge negatived all the technical objections
raised by the defendant and on the merits held that
the
Collector's action in
refusing to
levy nonagricultural assessment on the lands in question was
wrongful.
He, therefore, granted the declaration prayed for.
He, however, refused to give further relief · to
the plaintiff and disallowed the prayer for a . direction
for levying
non-agricultural assessment on the lands
given in the two schedules and for paying it to the plaintllf.
He observed that the Government would be well
advised if it levied such assessment and paid it to the
plaintiff.
Two appeals were taken to the High Court against
the decree of the trial Judge. That Court modified this
decree
and granted a
declaration to the plaintiff
that he was entitled to receive non-agricultural
asses~
ment on all lands which are and which may hereafter
be used for non-agricultural
purposes.
It ordered
the defendant to levy such altered assessment on the
lal}ds mentioned in schedule I and decreed consequential damages to the plaintiff in respect to these lands.
As regards the lands in schedule II, the plaintiff's suit
for a direction to assess
and levy non-agricultural
assessment on them was dismissed.
The court drew
a distinction between lands that had been converted
to non-agricultural use before the survey of 1926 and
thos~ which had since then been converted to such use.
As regards the former, it was held that the survey
officer had erroneously declined to make non-agricultural assessment on those lands and his action was
ultra vires.
Relief was given to the plaintiff regarding
those lands as prayed for.
As regards the latter it
was held that it was within the discretion of the
Government to order an alteration of the assessment
on such lands and this discretion could not be questioned in a court of law.
The plaintiff being dissatis.-
fied with this part of the decision made ~ application
for leave. to appeal to the Privy Council on the 15th
1951
Fattna Haft
.Ali Mohamtd
a11d Othtr3
v.
The Statt ef
Bomba,;.
MahajanJ.
1951
P'atma H~ji
AliM1Mmed
cm/ Others
v.
The State -.f
Btnnba)•.
Mahajan].
274
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1951]
September, 1945.
During the pendency ot the application the plaintiff died and his heirs and executors were
impleaded
as his legal representatives.
A certificate
for leave to appeal to the Privy Council was granted
on the 10th February; 1947, and the appeal preferred
under the certificate is now before us for decision.
There is no conrtoversy in this appeal as regards the
reliefs that have been given to the plaintiff by the
High Court.
The appeal concerns the further relief
refused to the plaintiff in respect to the lands mentioned in schedule II.
It was contended on behalf of the
appellant that under the terms of the conveyance dated
25th January, 1819,
and of the covenants contained
therein it was not open to the Government or the
Collector to refuse the alteration of the assessment
claimed by the plaintiff and that the Government · could
not give any direction under rule 92 which would be
contrary to these covenants and assurances.
It was said
that the Government was bound to use its power to levy
assessment as trustee for the transferee and that the
exercise of this power could not be arbitrarily refused
by it.
It was urged that the Government Resolution
dated 5th June, 1907, clearly indicated that the rules
framed under the Land Revenue Code were not intended to affect adversely the owners of alienated lands and
the Collector was bound to make an assessment as required by the plaintiff.
Lastly, it was argued that as a
matter of fact Government never exercised its power
under rule 92 and never .gave a direction to the Collector
to a contrary effect and that the mere affirmatfon of the
erroneous order of the Collector by Government did not
amount to a direction contemplated by the provisiom
of rule 92.
Having considered this case in all its aspects, we
have reached the decision that the High Court's decision in so far as it refused relief to the plaintiff in respect to the lands mentioned in schedule II should be
reversed.
Rule 92 cited in the earlier part of this
judgment in imperative terms directs the Collector to
alter the assessment in case agricultural lands are
converted to non-agricultural use.
The Collector. hat
- ...
..
s.c:R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
275
no ·option in the matter and as soon as an application is
made to him he should proceed to make an assessment
and levy it on the non-agricultural lands.
When the
Collector declined to accede to the request of the plaintiff he acted in contravention of the clear provisions
of the rule, because admittedly at that time no "directions to the contrary" had been given to hlni by the
Government.
There was no resolution of the Government in existence and no notification had been issued
under the provisions of rule 92 directing the Collector
not to make an alteration in the assessment when
requhed to do so.
Th.e Commissioner, in dismissing
the plaiD.tiff's appeal, also contravened the provisions
of rule 92.
When the matter went up in appeal to the
Governor in Council, no decision was taken under the
provisions of rule 92.
The High Court assumed that
the confirmation of the action of the Collector by the
Government amounted to a direction by the Government to the contrary in respect of the lands in
question.
We are unable to agree with this conclusion.
When
Government has been given the power to give directions to the _ Collector not to act in accordance with the
imperative provisions of a rule which enjoin upon him
to make the altered assessment, that power has to be
exercised in clear and unambiguous terms as it affects
civil rights of the persons concerned and the decisions
that the power has been exercised should be notified in
the usual manner in which such decisions are made
known to the public.
It was conceded by Mr. Joshi that
no such -decision was taken by Government and no
direction was issued by Government under
rule 92.
Dismissal by the Government of the plaintiff's appeal
and affirmation by it of an erroneous order of the Collector could not be held to amount to action under the
provisions of rule 92. _ In these circumstances, the
plaintiff was clearly entitled to further relief in respect
to lands mentioned in schedule II and a direction
should have been issued to the State
Govrenmcnt for
making altered assessment on non-agricultural land.
and levy it on them and pay 'it to the plaintiff.
36
1951
Falma Haji
Ali Mohamtti
anti Othtrs
v.
The State qf
Bombay.
ltfahajan j.
1951
Jfatma Haji
Ali MohtJmtd
nd Others.
v.
The State ef
Bombay.
Mahajan].
Zl6
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1951]
Mr. Joshi contended that the true effect of the pr<>-
visions contained in section 48 (2) an:d rule 92 was that
the Government was not bound to levy altered assessment on lands converted to non-agricultural use, that
the section merely provided that the persons in possession of land were liable for such assessment but it did
not say that it was obligatory on the Government to
make it and that the court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the discretion of the Government in the
matter.
We think that when a liability is imposed by
a statute, that liability cannot be defeated by the
exercise of any discretion by
Gov~rnment or by making
rules wh'ich may negative that liability, but it is not
necessary in this case to finally decide the point as the
appeal stands decided otherwise.
It is also unnecessary
to express an opinion as to the precise scope of the
power conferred on Government by the language of
rule 92.
The plaintiff's learned counsel very properly did not
press his appeal in respect to the claim of damages
concerning lands mentioned in schedule II.
Plaintiff's
suit to that extent fails.
For the reasons given above the appeal is allowed
and the plaintiff's suit is decreed with costs except in
regard to· the claim for damages in respect to the lands
mentioned "in schedule II. The defendant is directed to
make an assessment on lands mentioned in schedule II
in the same way as in respect of the lands mentioned in schedule I and levy the same and pay it to the
plaintiff.
Appeal allowed.
Agent for the appellants : K. ]. Kale.
Agent for the respondent : P. A. Mehla.
/