# MAHARAN A SHRI J AYA V ANTSINHJI, RANMALSINHJI v. THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1959] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 911
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1956-05-14
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. .254 to 256.of 1958
- **Bench:** S. R. Das, N. H. Bhagwati, B. P. Sinha, K. SuBBA RAO, K. N. Wanchoo
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/maharan-a-shri-j-aya-v-antsinhji-ranmalsinhji-v-the-state-of-bombay-and-others-1668
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

'l'aluqdari Tenure, Abolition of-Liability of erstwhile Taluqdar
to pay tand revenue assessment-Jama, if distinct from such assessmeni~Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, r949 (Bom. LXI
of ry49), s. 5(2)-Gujrat Taluqdars Act, r888 (Bom. VI of r888),
ss. 22, 23;._Bombay Land Revenue Code, r879 (Bom. V of r879),
s. ri7R.
The appellants were Taluqdars owning taluqdari villages in
District Ahmedabad, State of Bombay. In 1922-23 there was a
revision settlement of land revenue and the aggregate sum of
land revenue payable by each taluqdari estate was fixed.
In
1925-26, in exercise o"f the powers conferred by s. 22 of the
Gujrat Taluqdars Act, 1888 (Born. VI of 1888), the Government
of Bombay ascertained and declared the jama payable by each
taluq which was much less than the amount of land revenue
and the said declaration was to remain in force for thirty years.
With the passing in 1949 of the Bombay Ta\uqdari Abolition
Act, 1949• the taluqdari estates of the appellants were abolished
and they became occupants of the lands and, after the expiry of
the thirty years, were called upon to pay the full land revenue
assessment in respect of the lands. It was contended on behalf
of the appellants that by reason of s. n7R of the Bombay Land
Revenue Code, 1879, the declaration made by the Governor in
council fixing the amount of jama for a period of thirty years
would continue to be in force even after the expiry of that
period till a revision settlement was made and the Government
was precluded from demanding the higher amount of revenue
till then.
Held, that the contention must fail.
The jama payable by the · Taluqdars under s. 22 of the
Gujrat Taluqdars Act, 1888, was distinct from the revenue
assessment of land comprised in the taluqdari estate and they
could not be equated. The declaration under s. 22 or the fixation
of the jama under s. 23(1) of the Act was in the nature of a
settlement entered into between the Government on the one
hand and the Taluqdar on the other but that was no settlement
of land revenue within the meaning of s. n7R of the Bombay
Land Revenue Code, 1879.
As s. 5(2) (b) of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act.
1949, expressly saved the settlement made under s. 23 and the
December 16.
M aharana Shri
J a'yava11tsinhj' i,
Rannialsinhji
v.
The State of
Bo1nbay
and Others
Subba Rao J.
912
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp.
declaration under s. 22 of the Gujrat Taluqdars Act, the appellants were liable to pay the entire land revenue after the expiry
of 30 years, i.e., from the year 1955-56.

## Text

(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
911
MAHARAN A SHRI J AYA V ANTSINHJI,
RANMALSINHJI
v.
THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND OTHERS
(and connected petition)
(S. R. DAS, c. J., N. H. BHAGWATI, B. P. SINHA,
K. SuBBA RAO and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.)
'l'aluqdari Tenure, Abolition of-Liability of erstwhile Taluqdar
to pay tand revenue assessment-Jama, if distinct from such assessmeni~Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, r949 (Bom. LXI
of ry49), s. 5(2)-Gujrat Taluqdars Act, r888 (Bom. VI of r888),
ss. 22, 23;._Bombay Land Revenue Code, r879 (Bom. V of r879),
s. ri7R.
The appellants were Taluqdars owning taluqdari villages in
District Ahmedabad, State of Bombay. In 1922-23 there was a
revision settlement of land revenue and the aggregate sum of
land revenue payable by each taluqdari estate was fixed.
In
1925-26, in exercise o"f the powers conferred by s. 22 of the
Gujrat Taluqdars Act, 1888 (Born. VI of 1888), the Government
of Bombay ascertained and declared the jama payable by each
taluq which was much less than the amount of land revenue
and the said declaration was to remain in force for thirty years.
With the passing in 1949 of the Bombay Ta\uqdari Abolition
Act, 1949• the taluqdari estates of the appellants were abolished
and they became occupants of the lands and, after the expiry of
the thirty years, were called upon to pay the full land revenue
assessment in respect of the lands. It was contended on behalf
of the appellants that by reason of s. n7R of the Bombay Land
Revenue Code, 1879, the declaration made by the Governor in
council fixing the amount of jama for a period of thirty years
would continue to be in force even after the expiry of that
period till a revision settlement was made and the Government
was precluded from demanding the higher amount of revenue
till then.
Held, that the contention must fail.
The jama payable by the · Taluqdars under s. 22 of the
Gujrat Taluqdars Act, 1888, was distinct from the revenue
assessment of land comprised in the taluqdari estate and they
could not be equated. The declaration under s. 22 or the fixation
of the jama under s. 23(1) of the Act was in the nature of a
settlement entered into between the Government on the one
hand and the Taluqdar on the other but that was no settlement
of land revenue within the meaning of s. n7R of the Bombay
Land Revenue Code, 1879.
As s. 5(2) (b) of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act.
1949, expressly saved the settlement made under s. 23 and the
December 16.
M aharana Shri
J a'yava11tsinhj' i,
Rannialsinhji
v.
The State of
Bo1nbay
and Others
Subba Rao J.
912
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp.
declaration under s. 22 of the Gujrat Taluqdars Act, the appellants were liable to pay the entire land revenue after the expiry
of 30 years, i.e., from the year 1955-56.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos.
.254 to 256.of 1958.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and
orders dated May 14, 1956, and June 15, 1956, of the
Bombay High Courtjn Special Civil Applications Nos.
1270, 1373 and 1374 of 1956.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:
Petitions Nos. 18 and 66
of 1957.
Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and S. S. Shukla, for the
appellants and the petitioners.
0. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, H. J,
Umrigar and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents.
1958. December 16. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
SuBBA RAo, J.-These are three appeals by Special
Leave from the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissing the petitions filed by
the appellants for Writs in the nature of Prohibition
restraining the respondents from realising from the
appellants land revenue in respect of their estates at
an enhanced rate for the year . 1955-56. The petitioners in the two petitions also asked for similar
relief against the respondents. The appeals as well
as the Writ Petitions were heard together, as they
raised a common question of law.
The material facts in Civil Appeal No. 254 of 1958
may be briefly stated : The appellant was a taluqdar
owning several taluqdari villages situate in the
Dholka Taluka of Ahmedabad District. In the year
1922-23 there was a revision settlement of land
revenue of the lands situa.te in the said taluka including the said taluqdari villages. Under that settlement
the aggregate of the land revenue payable in respect
of the lands comprised in the said taluqdari villages
was fixed in a sum of Rs. 62,627-2-6. In the year
1925-26, in exercise of the powers conferred under
(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
913
s. 22 of the Gujarat Taluqdars Act, 1888 (Bom. VI of
1888) (hereinafter referred to as the Taluqdar11' Act),
the Government of Bombay ascertained and declared
that a jama of Rs. 32,643-3:0 was payable in respect
of the said taluqdari villages and the said declaration
was to remain in force for a period of thirty years
from the year 1925-26. In the year 1949, the Bombay
Legislature passed the Bombay Taluqdari Abolition
Act, 1949, hereinafter referred to as the Abolition Act,
and it came into force on or about August 15, 1950.
By s. 3 of the Abolition Act, talugdari tenure was
abolished and all the incidents of the said tenure
attaching to any land comprised in the taluqdari
estate were extinguished.
Under the Abolition Act,
the appellant became an occupant of the lands. After
the expiry of the thirty year period, the talatis of the
respective villages called upon the appellant to pay
the full land revenue assessment in respect of the
lands comprised in the said villages. The appellant
contending that he was only liable to pay jama
declared to be payable by him by the Government in
1925-26 filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of
Bombay for the aforesaid relief.
The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 255 of 1958 was
a taluqdar owning several taluqdari villages situate
in Dholka and Dhandhulka Talukas of Ahmedabad
District. The facts in this case are similar to those
given in Civil Appeal No. 254of 1958except in regard
to the fact that the jama ascertained and declared
to be payable by the appellant in this appeal by the
Government iQ. 1925-26 was about Rs. 5,734 as
against the setLlement amount of Rs. 14,452-11-0.
The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 256 of 1958 was
a taluqdar owning several taluqdari villages situate in
Dholka Taluka in Ahmedabad District. The facts
in this appeal also are similar to those. in the other
two except in regard to the fact that in this case the
Government ascertained and declared the jama payable by the appellant to be Rs. 21,877 as against the
settlement amount of Rs. 44,551.
115
Maharana Shri
J ayavantsinhji,
Rsnmal.<fohji
v.
Th• State of
Bombay
and Others
Subba Rao ].
Mahafanrt Sh,i
}ayavantsinhji,
Ranmalsinhji
v.
The State of
Bombay
and Othe,s
Subba Rao J.
914
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp.
Writ Petition No. 66of1957 filed by the appellant in
C. A. No. 254 of 1958 relates to the demand of enhanced revenue in respect of his Sa.natl estate. The
facts in this petition are similar to those in the appeals
except that the Government ascertained and declared
the jama payable by him at Rs, 20,886 as against the
settlement amount of Rs. 48,247.-13-0. The Writ
Petition relates to the demand made for the year
1956-57.
Writ Petition No. 18 of 1957 was filed by Thakur
Vikramsinhji Manharsinhji of Gumph Estate, Ahmedabad District, Bombay State, who was a ta.luqdar of
Gum ph Estate in Ahmedabad District comprising of
seven taluqdari villages. The facts in this petition
also are similar to those in the appeals. In this case
the jama ascertained and declared was Rs. 16,499-4-0 ·
whereas the assessment was fixed at Rs. 30,223-12-0.
This Writ Petition also relates to the demand made
for the year 1955-56.
The appellants in the appeals and the petitioners
in the Writ Petitions aforesaid will be, for the sake
of convenience, described hereafter as the appellants.
Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, the learned Counsel
for the appellants, contends that the jama ascertained
and declared to be due from the appellants for a
period of thirty years was fixed at the revenue settlement, that by reason of s .. ll 7R of the Bombay Land
Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as the
Code), they were liable to pay only the said assess.
ment till there was re-settlement and that therefore
the respondents have no right to make a demand for
an amount higher than that declared to be due from
them in 1925-26.
The learned Solicitor General
counters this argument by contending that under the
Taluqdars' Act, there was an essential distinction between revenue settlement and the ascertainment and
declaration of the jama; ·that. after the Abolition Act,
the amount of jama was payable only till th.e expiry
of the thirty year period and that thereafter the appellants who had become mere occupants· would be
liable to pay the entire land revenue assessment
already fixed in respect of those lands. The question
(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
915
is which of the two contentions should prevail having
regard to the relevant provisions of the Taluqdars'
Act, the Abolition Act and the Code.
It will be convenient to read the relevant provisions
from the two Acts.
GUJARAT TALUQDARS ACT, 1888:
"2. (1) In this Act, unless there be something
repugnant in the subject or context,-
(a) ............................................................. .
(b) .............................. , .............................. .
(c) "jama" means land revenue payable by a
taluqdar to the Provincial Government.
4. It shall be lawful for the Provincial Government whenever it may seem expedient, to direct a revenue survey or a revised revenue survey of any taluqdari estate, under the provisions of the Bombay Land
Revenue Code, 1879, applicable to such survey.
5.
The settlement register prepared by the
Survey Officer under section 108 of the said Code on
the occasion of making any such survey shall,
unless the Provincial Government otherwise direct
contain, in lieu of the particulars specified in the said
section, the following particulars (namely) :-
(a) the area and the assessment of each surveynumber.
22. (1) If a taluqd,ar's estate, or any portion
thereof, is not wholly or partially exempt from landrevenue and its liability to payment of land-revenue is
not subject to special conditions or restrictions, the
jama payable to Government in respect of such estate
or person t.hereof shall, if a survey-settlement has been
extended thereto, be the aggregate of the surveyassessments of the lands composing such estate or
such portion thereof, minus such deduction, if any, as
Govern~ent shall in each case direct.
(2) The Governor in Council may declare the
amount of jama· so ascertained fixed for any term not
exceeding thirty years."
BOMBAY TALUQDARI TENURE ABOLITION
ACT, LXll of 1949:
M aharana Shri
Jayavantsinhji,
Ra121nalsinhji,
v.
The State of
Bombay
and Others
Subba Rao J.
M aharana Sliri
J ayavantsinhji,
Rantnal.sinhji
v.
1'h' State of
Hom.bay
and Others
Subba Rao J.
916
8UPRE1\1E COURT REPORTS (1959] Supp.
"3. With effect from the date on which this Act
comes into force,-
(i) the tulugdari tenure shall wherever it prevails
be deemed to have been abolished; and
(ii) save as expressly provided by or under the
provisions of this Act, all the incidents of the said
tenure attaching to any land comprised in a taluqclari
estate shall be deemed to have been extinguished.
(4) All revenue surveys or revised revenue surveys of taluqdari estates directed by the State G,overnment under section 4 of the Taluqdars' Act and all
settlements made shall be deemed to have been made
under Chapters VIII and VIII-A of the Code and the
settlement registers and other records prepared of such
surveys shall be deemed to have been prepared under
the corresponding provisions of the Code.
(5) (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section.
(2),-
(a) all taluqdari lands are and shall be liable to
the payment of land revenue in accordance with the
provisions of the Code and the rules made thereunder,
and
(b) a taluqdar holding any taluqdari land or a
cadet of a taluqdar's family holding any taluqdari
land hereditarily for the purpose of maintenance, immediately before the coming into force of this Act,
shall be deemed to be an occupant within the meaning
of the Code or any other law for the time being in
force.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to
affect-
(b) the right of any person to pay jama only under
any agreement or settlement recognised under section
23 or under a declaration under section 22 of the
Taluqdars' Act so long as such agreement, settlement
or declaration remains in force under the provisions of
this Act.
(17) The enactment.a specified in Schedule II are
hereby repealed : Provided that the repeal of the
said enactment shall not in any way be deemed to
affect,-
( a) ............................................................ .
)
'-
(l) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
917
(b) ............................................................ .
(c) any declaration made or any agreement or
settlement recognised, any partition confirmed and
any management of the taluqdari estate assumed
under the provisions of any of the enactments hereby
repealed,
and any proceedings connected with such partition or
management instituted befare the aforesaid date shall
be continued and disposed of as if this Act had not
been passed."
The position emerging from the aforesaid provisions
may be summarized thus: The Taluqdars' Act was
enacted to make special provision for the revenue
administration of the estates held by certain superior
land-holders in the districts of Ahmedabad, Kaira,
Broach and the Panch Mahals. Section 4 enabled the
Governor in Council to direct a revenue s11rvey or
revised revenue survey of any taluqdari estate under
the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. In
regard to such an estate, survey would be made
under s. 108 of the Code and the Settlement Officer
would prepare a Register to be called the "Settlement
Register", which would contain the particulars mentioned in s. 5 of the Taluqdars' Act in lieu of the
particulars specified in s. 108 of the Code.
Under
s. 22 of the Taluqdars' Act, the jama payable by a
taluqdar would be the aggregate of the survey assessments of the lands composing such an estate or such
portion thereof minus such deduction, if any, that the
Government in each case should direct.
Under
sub-s. 2, the Governor in Council was empowered to
declare the jama so ascertained fixed for any term not
exceeding thirty years. In 1949, the taluqdari tenure
was abolished by the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act.
By s. 5 of the Abolition Act, the taluqdars
became occupants within the meaning of the Code,
i. e., they were deemed to be holders in actual possession of unalienated lands other than the tenants; with
the result that all the taluqdari lands became liable to
the payment of land revenue in accordance with the
provisions of the Code and the rules made thereunder.
1\1 aharana Shri
] ayavantsinhj i,
Ranmalsinhji
v.
1"he State of
Bombay
and Others
Subba Rao j.
Jvlahurana Shri
J ayavantsinhji,
Ranmalsiuhji
v.
The Siate of
Bonibay
and Others
Subba Rao ].
918
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp.
Sub-section 2 of s. 5 saved the right of any person to
pay jama only under an agreement or settlement
·recognized under s. 23 or a declaration made under
s. 22 of the Taluqdars' Act so long as such agreement,
settlement or declaration remained in force.
Shortly
stated, the combined effect of the provisions was t.hat
the taluqda.ri tenure was abolished and that the taluqdar became the orcupant with liability to pay land
revenue in accordance with the provisions of the Code.
If there was no other relevant provision indicating
a contrary intention, it is manifest from the aforesaid
summary that the appellants would be liable to pay
land revenue in accordance with the provisions of the
Code after the period fixed in the declaration expired,
i.e., from the year 1955-1956.
The learned Counsel for the appellants contends that
by reason of s. l l 7R of the Code, the declarntion
ma.de by the Governor in Council fixing the amount
of jama for a period of thirty years would continue
to be in force even after the expiry of the said period
till a revision settlement was made and therefore the
saving clause would preclude the Government from
demanding higher amount of revenue than the jama
ascertained and fixed in the declaration till the date
of the revised settlement. Section l l 7R of the Code
reads:
" All settlements of land revenue heretofore made
and introduced and in force at ·the date of the commencement of the Bombay Land Revenue Code
(Amendment) Act, 1939, shall be deemed to have been
made and introduced in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter and shall, notwithstanding anything contained in section l l 7E, be deemed to continue
to remain in force until the introduction of a revision
settlement."
If the declaration of the Governor in Council is a
settlement of land revenue within the meaning of this
section, it would continue to be in force till the introduction of the revision settlement. It is, therefore,
necessary to ascertain the meaning of the words
"settlement of land revenue" in the section. Settlement is defined by s. ll 7C(l) to mean the result of the
•,
;
(I) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
919
operations conducted in a zone in order to determine
the land revenue assessment. What is the ~cope of
the operations conducted to arrive at the said result ?
The provisions of Ch. VIII-A lay down the successive
steps to be followed by the authorities concerned to
fix the land revenue.
Under s. 117D, the Government
may at any time direct a settlement of the land revenue of any land of which revenue survey has been
made under s. 95 or not. It may also direct at any
time a revised settlement of the land revenue of such
lands.
A settlement once made remains in force for a
period of thirty years unless the State Government
directs that it should remain in force for any period
less than thirty years. In a case where a revised
settlement of land revenue has not been made for one
reason or other, the Government may extend the term
of the settlement for such period as it may think fit.
The land revenue assessment shall be determined by
dividing the lands to be settled into different groups
and fixing a standard rate for each group. Groups
are ordinarily formed on a consideration of various
factors such as physical configuration, climate, rainfall, price and yield of principal crop and othe1· relevant 'considerations.
Land revenue of individual
survey numbers and sub-divisions shall be based on
their classification and value in the manner prescribed.
The Settlement Officer, who is entrusted with the duty
of making the settlement, shall follow the prescribed
procedure and fix a standard rate for each class of
land in each group on a consideration of the relevant
factors.
A hierarchy of Tribunals are created for the
persons aggrieved to take the matter in appeal.
Finally the State Government passes orders approving the standard rates or varying them.
After the
State Government has passed orders and the notice of
the same has been given in the prescribed manner,
settlement will be deemed to have been introduced
and land revenue according to such settlement will be
levied from such date as the State Government may
direct. It will be seen from the aforesaid summary of
the scheme of land revenue settlement that land revenue is fixed for each land, having regard to the group
Maliarana Shri
j ayava11tsinhji,
Ranmalsinhji
v.
The State of
Bombay
and Othtrs
Subba Rao ].
M aAirrana S Itri
}ayav12ntsinhji,
Ranmalsinhji
v.
The State of
Bombay
and Others
Subb• Rao j.
920
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1959] Supp.
within which it falls.
All such settlements of landrevenue ma.de before the Bombay Land Revenue
(Amendment) Code, 1939, will be deemed to remain in
force until the introduction of a revised settlement.
Part II of the Ta.luqdars' Act provided for survey
and settlement. Under s. 4 of the Ta.luqdars' Act,
the Governor in Council might direct a revenue survey
of the ta.luqdari estate under the provisions of the
Code. The settlement register prepared under that
Code was directed to contain particulars mentioned in
s. 5 such as area and assessment of such survey-number, etc. Presumably, under that Act a. settlement was
ma.de in regard to the taluqdari estates and settlement
registers were prepared fixing the assessment of each
survey-number. That settlement would certainly be
a settlement of land revehue within the meaning of
s. 117R of the Code and that would continue to be in
force till a resettlement was made.
Part IV of the Taluqdars' Act dealt with Revenue
Administration. Section 22 laid down that in a case
where survey-settlement had been_ extended to a
taluqdari estate, the jama payable by the taluqdar to
Government in respect of such an estate shall be the
aggregate of the survey-assessments of the lands composing such estate or such portion thereof minus such
deduction, if any, as Government shall direct in each
case. Under sub-s. (2) of s. 22, the Governor in Council could declare the amount of jama so ascertained.
fixed for any term not exceeding thirty years.
Under
s. 23, nothing in the Act was deemed to affect the
validity of any agreement thereto-before entered into
by or with a taluqdar and still in force a.s to the amount
of his jama, nor of any settlement of the amount of
jama made by or under the orders of Government for
a term of years and still in force.
Sections· 22 and 23
provided for the arrangements entered into or to be
entered into with the Governor in Council in respect
of the jama payable by the ta.Iuqda.rs. Section 23
saved the previous agreements or ~ettlements in respect of the jama. Section 22 authorised the Government to fix the ja.ma, having regard to the aggregate
of the survey assessments of the lands and to declare
(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
921
the same fixed for a period of years not exceeding
thirty. The declaration under s. 22 or the agreement
or settlement of jama mentioned in s. 23(1) might be
described broadly as a settlement entered into between
the Government and a taluqdar but it was not a
settlement of land-revenue within the meaning of
s. ll 7R of the Code, for settlement of revenue was the
result of operations carried on in respect of different
classes of lands in the manner prescribed by Ch. VIIIA of the Code or the settlement in respect of such
lands in accordance with the pre-existing laws. It
was beyond the scope of Ch. VIII-A to ascertain the
jama, though the rates fixed under such a settlement
were taken as the basis by the Government in ascertaining the jama payable by the taluqdar. The jama
payable by the taluqdar was distinct from the revenue assessment of the land comprised in the taluqdari
estate and they could not be equated.
Section 17 of the Abolition Act repealed the Taluqdars' Act and expressly provided that the repeal
of the said enactment shall not affect any declaration
made or
any
agreement
or
settlement
recognized in respect of the taluqdari estates. Section 5(2) (b) of the Abolition Act expressly saved the
agreement or settlement recognized under s. 23 or a
declaration made under s. 22 from the operation of the
Act till such agreement, settlement or declaration
remained in force. It is, therefore, manifest that the
declaration made under the Taluqdars' Act enured to
the advantage of the taluqdars, notwithstanding the
repeal of the Taluqdars' 'Act, till such time it was in
force.
When the Abolition Act came into force, the
time mentioned in the declaration in the cases before
us, i.e., thirty years, had not run out and therefore the
declaration made by the Government under the Taluqdars' Act continued to be in force till 1955-56. After
the expiry of the time, the appellants would be liable
to pay the entire land-revenue according to the settlement register.
The entire scheme of the Abolition Act was that
after the passing of that Act, the taluqdars became
116
M aharant1 Shri
J ayavantsinhji,
Ranmalsinhji
v.
The State of
Bombay
and Others
Subba Rao ],
lt1a1iarana Shri
J ayavanlsinhji,
Ranmalsinhji
v.
Th6 Slal6 of
Bombay
and Others
S11bb11 Rao ] .
z958
December I6.
922
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1959] Supp.
occupants with the result that they would be liable to
pay land revenue in accordance with the provisions of
the Land Revenue Code. If sub-s. (2) was not inserted
in s. 5, they would be liable to pay land-revenue under
the Code, notwithstanding the declaration made or the
agreement entered into by the Government with them
in regard to the jama payable by them. Sub-section (2)
was only enacted to preserve to them the concession
till the period fixed had expired.
We, therefore, hold
that the declaration made by the Governor in Council
in 1925-26 expired in 1955-56 and the appellants
became liable to pay the entire land-revenue according
to the settlement registers from the year 1955-56.
In the result, all the appeals and the Writ Petitions
a.re dismissed with costs, the State of Bombay and the
Collector of Ahmedabad, who are the respondents
herein, getting one set of hearing costs in all.
Petitions dismissed.
HAJI MOHAMMAD EKRAMUL HAQ
v.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
(JAFER IMAM, S. K. DAS and J. L. KAPUR, JJ.)
Rcquisition-Compensatioii-Potwtial vali<e • of propertyDefrnce of India Act, s. I9-Land Acquisition Act, I894 (I of
I894), S. 23.
The four storied premises in suit belonging to the appellant
were requisitioned by the respondent for the purposes of the
Controller of Army Factory Accounts who already had his office
in a neighbouring house. The arbitrator, to whom the question
of
compensation was referred,
awarded compensation of
Rs. 2,581-S-o according to the rent prevailing in the locality for
sit:nilar buildings \vith sirailar acco1nmodation and amenities.
This included an additional award of 10% for the potentialities
of the premises consisting of the special value of the premises
for the Controller, the indefinite period of the requisition and
additional burden on the lift. On appeal by the appellant the