# KUMAR SHREE DIGBIJAYSINHJI v. NANJISA VDAS & ORS

- **Citation:** [1969] 1 S.C.R. 405
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1968-07-23
- **Case number:** civil Application No. 55 of 1957
- **Bench:** R. S. Bachawat, K. S. Hegde
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/kumar-shree-digbijaysinhji-v-nanjisa-vdas-ors-4474
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, 1951 (Act 25 of 1951). 18, 19--
Grant of land by former ruler of 1nerged State recognised by Government
of India on condition that grantee would not be entitled ilo evict tenantsSuch condition whether a right or privilege of the tenant
within
the
meaning of s. 18-Grantee dectared by State Government notification to
be a Girasdar subject to s. l S-Such Girasdar whether can file application
under s. 19 for allotment of land for self-eultivation after eviction
of
tenants.
In 1947 the Ruler of Virpur State in Saurashtra granted certain agricultural lands to the appellant.
Later these lands were exchanged for
others. In 1948 the administration of Virpur State was assumed by the
United State of Saurashtra. The Saurashtra Government questioned the
grant but the Government of India at a conference with the Ruler recognised it as having been lawfully made to the appellant, with the condition
that he would not evict the tenants from the lands. The arrangement was
set out in a letter dated November 2, 1949 from the Political Department
Of the Government of India to the Rev·~nue Department, United State of
Saurashtra.
Though the appellant was not a patty to the arrangement
he was aware of and accepted the arrangem·ent and the conditions upon
which his grant was confirmed by the Government of India.
The
Saurashtra Land Reforms Act came into effect on September l, 1951.
On January 29, 1954 the Government of Saurashtra issued a notification
under s. J 5 (2) of the Act declaring the appellant tr> be a Girasdar for
purposes of th~ Act subject to the· provisions of s. 18 thereof, and this
was later by ano,~her notification, clarified to mean that: he was a Girasdar
subject to the condition imposed by the Government at the time of his
recognition, that. he could not evict the tenants.
In the meantime the
appellant made an application to the Mamlatdar for an allotment of land
for personal cultivation under s. 19 of the Aot.
This application was
allowed by the Mamlatdar but the Revenue Tribunal in revision held
that the application under s. 19 was not maintainable.
The appellant's
petition before the High Court under s. 227 of the Act was dismissed on
the grounds that (i) the conditions incorporated in the letter of November
2, 1949 having been accepted by the appellant enured for the benefit of
the tenants under s. 18 of the Act; (ii) the rights of the Girasdar were
restricted by the notification under s. 2(15) of the Act declaring him
to be a Girasdar and the appellant was bound by
those
restrictions.
Again•! the High Court's judgment the appellant came to this Court.
HELD : (i) Had the Government of India annuled the grant made
to the appellant the annulment would have been an Act of State
and
could not be quesitioned before the Municipal Tribunals.
Instead of
annulling the grant the government elected to confirm it subject to the
conditions incorporated in the letter dated
November
2,
1949.
The
appellant accepted the· grant subject to those conditions and was bound
by them. [408 FJ
State of Saurashtra v. Jamadar Mohamad Abdulla, [1962] 3 S.C.R.
970. referred to.
406
SUPRBIE COURT REi>ORTS
[1969]
(ii) The conditions incorporated in the l<>ttcr dated November 2, 1949
A
were mtendc'd for the benefit of !he tenant. The tenants could claim the
benefit_ of the condition that the appellant could not evict them.
The
cond1tton was annexed. t_o the grant to the appellant.
The right or privll.e~e of the tenant ans1ryg out of this condition was a right or privilege
ans1ug out of a granl y,·nhin the meaning of s.
18. 1·he
expression
·grant' in s. 18 is, wide enough to take within its sweep a grant by the
Government to the Girasdar and is not limited to a grant by the Girasdar
to the tenant. (409 G-H]
B
(iii)_ On the strength of the order of allotment of land for personal
cult1vat1on under s. 20(2) the Girasdar is entitled to evict the tenants
from the land allolled to him.
When the Girasdar applies under s. 19
for allotment of

## Text

A
B
E
F
·G
H
KUMAR SHREE DIGBIJAYSINHJI
V.
NANJISA VDAS & ORS.
July 23, 1968
[R. S. BACHAWAT and K. S. HEGDE, JJ.J
Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, 1951 (Act 25 of 1951). 18, 19--
Grant of land by former ruler of 1nerged State recognised by Government
of India on condition that grantee would not be entitled ilo evict tenantsSuch condition whether a right or privilege of the tenant
within
the
meaning of s. 18-Grantee dectared by State Government notification to
be a Girasdar subject to s. l S-Such Girasdar whether can file application
under s. 19 for allotment of land for self-eultivation after eviction
of
tenants.
In 1947 the Ruler of Virpur State in Saurashtra granted certain agricultural lands to the appellant.
Later these lands were exchanged for
others. In 1948 the administration of Virpur State was assumed by the
United State of Saurashtra. The Saurashtra Government questioned the
grant but the Government of India at a conference with the Ruler recognised it as having been lawfully made to the appellant, with the condition
that he would not evict the tenants from the lands. The arrangement was
set out in a letter dated November 2, 1949 from the Political Department
Of the Government of India to the Rev·~nue Department, United State of
Saurashtra.
Though the appellant was not a patty to the arrangement
he was aware of and accepted the arrangem·ent and the conditions upon
which his grant was confirmed by the Government of India.
The
Saurashtra Land Reforms Act came into effect on September l, 1951.
On January 29, 1954 the Government of Saurashtra issued a notification
under s. J 5 (2) of the Act declaring the appellant tr> be a Girasdar for
purposes of th~ Act subject to the· provisions of s. 18 thereof, and this
was later by ano,~her notification, clarified to mean that: he was a Girasdar
subject to the condition imposed by the Government at the time of his
recognition, that. he could not evict the tenants.
In the meantime the
appellant made an application to the Mamlatdar for an allotment of land
for personal cultivation under s. 19 of the Aot.
This application was
allowed by the Mamlatdar but the Revenue Tribunal in revision held
that the application under s. 19 was not maintainable.
The appellant's
petition before the High Court under s. 227 of the Act was dismissed on
the grounds that (i) the conditions incorporated in the letter of November
2, 1949 having been accepted by the appellant enured for the benefit of
the tenants under s. 18 of the Act; (ii) the rights of the Girasdar were
restricted by the notification under s. 2(15) of the Act declaring him
to be a Girasdar and the appellant was bound by
those
restrictions.
Again•! the High Court's judgment the appellant came to this Court.
HELD : (i) Had the Government of India annuled the grant made
to the appellant the annulment would have been an Act of State
and
could not be quesitioned before the Municipal Tribunals.
Instead of
annulling the grant the government elected to confirm it subject to the
conditions incorporated in the letter dated
November
2,
1949.
The
appellant accepted the· grant subject to those conditions and was bound
by them. [408 FJ
State of Saurashtra v. Jamadar Mohamad Abdulla, [1962] 3 S.C.R.
970. referred to.
406
SUPRBIE COURT REi>ORTS
[1969]
(ii) The conditions incorporated in the l<>ttcr dated November 2, 1949
A
were mtendc'd for the benefit of !he tenant. The tenants could claim the
benefit_ of the condition that the appellant could not evict them.
The
cond1tton was annexed. t_o the grant to the appellant.
The right or privll.e~e of the tenant ans1ryg out of this condition was a right or privilege
ans1ug out of a granl y,·nhin the meaning of s.
18. 1·he
expression
·grant' in s. 18 is, wide enough to take within its sweep a grant by the
Government to the Girasdar and is not limited to a grant by the Girasdar
to the tenant. (409 G-H]
B
(iii)_ On the strength of the order of allotment of land for personal
cult1vat1on under s. 20(2) the Girasdar is entitled to evict the tenants
from the land allolled to him.
When the Girasdar applies under s. 19
for allotment of land for pc-rsonal cultivation, he seeks to evict the tenant
from the land.
Therefore when the apP"llant filed his application under
s. 19 he sought an order which would enable him lo evict the tenants in
contravc.ntion of the condition of his grant that he would not evict tho
C
tenant<.
In view of s. 18 nothing in Chapter IV of the Act enabled
him to oh1ain an order lin1iting or ahridging the rights and p'rivilcges of the
tenants arising under th·2' condition.
i·hc r-.famlatdar could not under
'i. 20 pa~<> an order \vhich \\·ould enable the appellant to evict them. 1be
application filed by the appellant under s. 19 y,•as therefore incompetent.
[410 F·Gl
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
37 of
D
1965.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated August 12, 1958
of the Bombay High Court at Rajkot (how Gujarat High Court)
in specia: civil Application No. 55 of 1957.
B. Sen, P. V. Hathi, K. L. Hathi and Atiqur Rehman, for
the appellant.
M. V. Goswami, for respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7.
N. S. Bindra and S. P. Nayar, for respondents Nos. 26 and
27.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Bachawat, J,
This appeal raises questions of interpretation
of certain provisions of the Saurashtm Land Reforms Act 1951
(Act No. XXV of 1951 ). On June !, 1947 Narendrasinghji the
then ruler of 1he Virpur State granted certain agricultural lands
situate within the State to the appellant, his paternal uncle.
On
February 11. 1948 Narcndrasinghji and the appellant effected _an
exchange under which the appellant returned the lands at Mat1ya
and Guda to Narendrasinghji and in lieu thereof was
gra~tcd
certain lands in Kharcdi.
The lands in Kharcdi arc the sub1ectmaner of dispute in this litigation.
On February 17. 1948 the
grant was recorded in the "Hak Patrak' of the Virpur State. On
March 8, 1948 the administration of the Virpur State was assumed by the Uniicd State of Saurashtra.
The grant to the appellant
was questioned by the Saurashtra Government.
Thereafter at a
conference called the Jamnagar Conference, ti w~s arranged between Narendrasinghji and the Government of India that the lands
E
F
G
H
,_
'·
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
DIGB!JAYSINHJI v. NANJISAVDAS (Bachawat, J.)
407
in Kharedi should be regarded as lawfully granted to the arpellant
subject to the condition that the grantee would not
~v1ct the
cultivators from the land. The arrangement was set out m a letter
da1ed Noveniber 2, 1949 from the officer on special duty (Integration) Political Dept., to the Secretary, Revenue Departmem,
United State of Saurashtra.
The Jetter stated : ·
"According to the Jamnagar Conference decision as
this grant was an exchange, it was
acceptable after
verification regarding reasonableness of the exchange.
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 12t% as
assessment (b) to see that no cultivator shall be evicted
from the land . . . . The grantee K. S. Digvijaysinghji
may kindly be informed of this assessment charge and
the other contents 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 Jetter."
Though the appellant was not a party to the arrangement, he was·
aware of and accepted the arrangement and the condition upon
which his grant was confirmed by the Government of India. Had"
he not accepted those conditions, it was likely that the government
would have resumed the grant under the Saurashtra Land Resumption Ordinance No. 84 of 1949 which came into force on
January 13, 1950. The Saurashtra Land Reforms Act came into
force on September 1, 1951. On January 29, 1954 the Government of Saurashtra issued a notification under sec. 15 (2) of the·
Act declaring the appellant to be a Girasdar for purposes of the
Act subject to the provisions of sec. 18 thereof.
By a notification
dated July 20, 1954 the Saurashtra Government clarified the
earlier notificatio1n stating that the appellant was a Girasdar subject to the provisions of sec. 18 of the Act, i.e., the condition
imposed by the government at the time of his recognition that he
cannot evict the tenants. In the meantime the apPellant had
applied to the Mamlatdar, Kalawad, for an order of allotment of
land for personal cultivation under sec. 18 of the Act. The application was resisted by the tenants who are the respondents in this
appeal. The tenants claimed that they had "chav" rights and that
in any event the appellant was not entitled to eject them.
Tue
Mamlatdar allowed the application and allotted to the appellant
lands out of the holding of four tenants.
An appeal from his
order was dismissed by the Deputy Collector, Eastern Division,
Halar.
On a revision application filed by the tenants the Bombay Revenue Tribunal set aside these orders and dismissed the
application filed under sec. 19.
All the tribunals concurrently
found that the tenants did not hold "chav" rights. The Mamlatdar aJlowed the application under sec. 19 on the ground that the
4011
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1969] I S.C.R.
conditions imposed upon the appellant before the passing of the
Act did not debar him from taking the henetils under the Act.
The Deputy Collector affirmed this order on the ground that by
obtaining the order of allotment of lands for personal cultivation
the appellant was not seeking to evict tenants by exercising his
rights as a landlord.
The Tribunal disagreed with the views of
the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector and observed that a; ·ihc
appellant was aware of and accepted the conditions imposed by
the arrangement incorporated in lhe letter dated
Novc1ubcr
2.
1.949, he was bound by them and his rights in the
lard
were
limited by the condition that he could not evict the tenants. The
Tribunal held that the tenants were entitled to lake ;1dvantage of
the conditions under sec. 18 of the Act and the application under
sec. 19 was therefore not maintainable
The appellant then applied to the High Couri of Ho111bay at
Rajkot under Art. 227 of the Constitution challenging the correctness of the order of the Revenue Tribunal.
The High Court di:imissed the application.
It held that the conditions incorporated
in the letter of November 2, 1949 having been accepted
by the
appellant enured for the benefit of the tenants under sec. 18 of
the Act. It also held that the ri~hts of the appellant as Girasdar
were restricted by the notification under sec. 2 ( 15) of the Act
declaring him to be a "Girasdas" and the appellant \\>as bound
by those restrictions.
The present appeal has been preferred by
the appellant under a certificate granted by the High Court.
It is not disputed that the Government of India had the power
to impose upon the appellant the conditions incorporated in the
letter dated November 2, 1949 and that the· appellant is bound
by them.
The government could refuse to recognise
the
grant
made to the appellant by the ruler of ·the Virpur State and to annul
the grant.
Had the government annulled the grant, the annulment would have been an Act of State and could not he questioned
before the municipal tribunals [see Srate of Sa11raslrtra v. Jamadar
Mohamad A bd11//a( 1 ) ].
Instead of annulling the grant the government elected to confirn1 it subject lo the conditions incorporated
in the
Jetter dated
November 2, 1949.
The appellant
accepted the _grant subject to those conditions and is bound by
them.
The question is whether in spite of the conditions incorporated
in the Jetter dated November 2, 1949 the appellant is entitled to
allotment of land under sec. 19 of the Saurashtra I .and Reforms
Act 195 I. The Act was passed for the improvement of land
revenue administration and for ultimately putting an end to the
Girasdari system.
It makes provisions to regula1e the relation-
·ship between the Girasdars and their tenants, to enable the latter
ii) [1062) J S.C.R. 970.
A
B
c
D
E
G.
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
DIGBIJAYSINHJI v. NANJISAVDAS (Bachawat, !.)
409
to become occupants of the land held by them and to provide for
the payment of compensation to the Girasdars for the extinguishment of their rights.
Girasdar means any talukdar,
bhagdar,
bhayat, cadet or mul-girasia and includes any person whom the
government may by notification in the official gazette declare t_o
be a .Girasdar for the purposes of the Act, [s. 2(15)]. It JS
common case that the appellant is a Girasdar by virtne of the
notification of the Saurashtra Government declaring him to be a
Girasdar.
The Act overrides other laws. Save as otherwise provided in the Act, its provisions have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the
time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of
any such law or any usage, agreement, settlement, grant, sanad
or any decree or order of any court or other authority, ( s. 3).
Chapter III regulates the relationship of
Girasdar with their
tenants.
Subject to certain exceptions any person who is lawfully
cultivating any land belonging to a Girasdar is for the purposes
of the Act deemed to be the tenant, ( s. 6). Sections 6 to 17
confer on the tenants certain benefits, privileges and immunities
in respect of rent, cess, rate, hak, tax, service,
termination of
tenancy and eviction from dwelling houses.
Particularly s. 12
provides tha!l no tenancy can be terminated except in accordance
with the provisions of Chapter IV or except on certain specified
grounds.
Section 18 provides :-
"Nothing contained in this Act sha]] be construed
to limit or abridge the rights or privileges of any tenant
under any usage or law for the time being in force or
arising out of any contract, grant, decree or order of
a court or otherwise howsoever."
Section 18 shows that the Act is intended to confer on the tenant
rights and privileges which he does not otherwise enjoy or possess
under any usage or law in force or any contract, grant, decree or
order of a court or arising in any other way. If the tenant has
any right or privilege apart from the provisions of the Act, he
needs no protection under the Act.
He can claim protection
under his existing rights and privileges.
His existing rights and
privileges are not limited or abridged by anything in the Act.
The con.ditons incorporated in the letter dated November 2,
1949 were mtended for the benefit of the tenants.
The tenants
can claim the benefit of the condition that the appellant would
not evict them.
The condition is annexed to the grant to the
appellant. The right or privilege of the tenant arising out of this
condition is a right or privilege arising out of a grant within the
meaning of sec. 18.
Tht expression "grant" in sec. 18 is wide
enough to take within its sweep a grant by the government to the
Girasdar and is not limited to a grant by the Girasdar to the
tenant.
410
SL"PREM E CO CRT REPORTS
11969] I S.C.R.
The next question is whether the rights and privileges of the
tenant arising om of the conditions incorporated
in the
Jetter
dated Novcmher 2, 1949 is limited or abridged by an order fo:
allotment of land to the appe!Iant under sec. 19
for
persona:
.culiivation.
Chapter IV enables Girasdars to obtain allotment of
land for personal cultivation.
Any Girasdar may file an application for such allotment before the Mamlatdar under sec. 19 within
a certain time.
On making the necessary enquiries the Mamlatdar may pass an order making an allotment of land to lhe Girasdar, [s. 20(2)).
After making the order the Mam!atdar has to
issue an occupancy certificate to the Girasdar in respect of the
deed.
[s. 2013)).
:-lo Girasdar can obtain possession
of any
land held by a tenant except in accordance with
such
order,
[s. 20( 4) ].
Nothing contained in Chapter IV applies
to
any
land in respect of which a tenant has acquired chav or buta hak,
(s. 27).
Cnder s. 39 the Girasdar
may obtain an occupancy
certificate in respect of land allotted to him under Chapter IV.
Section 50 ( 2) provides for execution of orders of the Mamlatdar
awarding possession. Chapter V provides for acquisition of occupancy rights by tenants.
Having regard to sec. 30( I) and the
proviso to sec. 32(b) the acquisition of occupancy rights
by
tenants is subject to an order of allotment to the Girasdar under
Chapter IV and any occupancy certificate issued to a tenant ceases
to be effective as soon as any agricultural land or any portion
thereof is allotted to a Girasdar under Chapter IV either before
or after the date on which the occupancy certificate issued to the
1cnant has become effective.
A
B
c
()
E
On the strength of the order of allotment of land for personal
cultivation under sec. 20(2) the Girasdar is entitled to evict the
tenants from 1he land allotted to him. When the Girasdar applies
1mder sec. 19 for allotment of land for personal cultivation. he
seeks to evict the tenants from the land.
Therefore when
the
F
appellant filed his application under sec. 19 he sought an order
which would enable him to evict the tenants in contravention of
the condition o[ his grant that he would not evict the tenants. In
view of sec. I 8 nothing in Chapter IV enables him to obtain an
order limiting or abridging the rights and privileges of the tenants
arising under the condition.
The Mamlatdar could
not
under
G
sec. io pass an order which would have the effect of limiting or
abridging those rights and privileges. The appellant had no right
to evict the tenan1s and the Mamlatdar could not pa% an order
which would enable the appellant to evict them. The application
filed by the appellant under sec. 19 was therefore incompetent.
1be appel!ant as a Girasdar was subject to the provisions of
H
sec. I 8.
The declaration in the notification dated January 29,
1954 that he was suhject to the provisions of sec. 18 stated what
followed from the express provisions of the Act.
Because of sec.
•
•
A
B
•
DIGBIJAY SINHJI v. NANJISAVDAS (Bachawat, J.)
411
18, the appellant was subject to the conditions imposed by the
Government at the time of his recognition that he cannot eviot the
tenants. The notification dated July 20, 1954 declared the existing disability of the appellant in respect of eviction of tenants.
The application filed by the appellant under sec. 19 was right!~'
dismissed by the Revenue Tribunal and the High Court rightly
refused to interfere with this decision under Art. 227 of the
Constitution.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
G.C.
Appeal dismissed .