# STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS v. GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL & ORS

- **Citation:** [1976] 3 S.C.R. 565
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 1804 and 1805 of 1970
- **Bench:** V. R. Krishna Iyer, N. L. Untwalia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-gujarat-ors-v-gujarat-revenue-tribunal-ors-6791
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

.f
Bo1nbay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act (Bombay 39
of 1954), ss. 8, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 22-Principles of compensatioti-Solatitun
and interest, when payable-'Three multiples', meanin[? of.
Land Acl!uisition Act (1 of 1894), ss. 23 and 26-Solatium, if conipensation.
Code of Civil Procedure (Act 5 of 1908), O. 41, r. 22-Applicability to
tribunals.
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 136-Exercise of discretion under.
On the coming into force of the Bombay Merged Territories And Areas
)- (Jagirs Abolition) Act 1953, on and from August 1, 1954, the jagirs were
abolished and certain properties comprised therein vested in the State. Some compensation was awarded by the Jagir Abolition Officer to the jagirdars on their
application, in respect of certain items. Oq appeal by the jagirdars, the Revenue
Tribunal modified the award. Aggrieved by the decision, both the State and
the jagirdars filed petitions and the High Court decided some points against the
._ State and some against the jagirdars and remanded the matter to the Tribunal.
Both sides appealed to this Court under Art. 136.
On behalf of the State it was contended that : (I) compen~ation for the
unbuilt village site lands; (2) solatium of 15% on the amount of compensation;
and (3) interest on the amount of instalments of compensation, which V.'erc
delayed, ~houl<l not have been awarded. The jagirdars contended that (1) the
expression 'three multiples' in s. 11 (2) means six times and so the compensation
should be six times the assessment and not three times as held by the High
C'ourt; (2) the Bagyat Kas should have been included in the assessment for
the purpose of assessing the compensation; and (3) the Tribunal had no po\Ver
and \Vas not justified in reducing the rates of the value of the villagt: site
lands.
HELD :
The appeals of the State are partly allowed on its 2nd and 3rd
contentions and the appeals of the jagirdars are dismissed.
B
c
D
E
( 1) The jagirdars are entitled to compensation for all unbuilt village. site
F
lands.
[572F]
Section 11(3) provides that any jagirdar having any right or interest in any
property referred to in s. 8 shall, if he proved to the satisfaction of the Collector
that he had any such right or interest, be entitled to compensation in the manner
provided in clauses (i) to (iii). In these clauses there is reference only to
3 kinds of property, but there are numerous other properties mentioned in s. 8.
The unbuilt village site land is one such. The jagirdar Vi'Ould be entitled to
compensation for rights or interests in them under s. 11(3), but no manner ot'
avo'arding compensation is indicated therein. Literally the language of sub-s. (3)
does not n1ake sense, and so, it should be understood as proviJing that the
person whose rights had been extinguished is entitled to cOmpensation, in respect
of the properties in which he had an interest. in accordance with the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, but subject to the exceptions provided in clauses (i) to
(iii). [572C-F]
(2) The Legislature did not intend nor did it provide for the payment of
any solatiun1 on the amount of compensation awardable to the jagirdars. [574C]
The concept of compensation means just equivalent or market value of the
property acquired.
Section 23(1), Land Acquisition Act provides that in detrn
G
H
566
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 3 S.C.R.
A
mining compensation various factors over nnd nbove the market value are to lie
taken into account.
Section 23(2) provides for the payment of 15% of the
market value as solatium in addition to the market value. That the leglslature
did r.ot intend to give any solatium to the jagirdars as compensation is clear'\_
from (a) the Explanation to s. 11 of the Jagirs Abolition Act, which defines
rr1arket value, refers only to s. 23(1) and nots. 23(2), Land Acquisition Act; .J
(b) Section 15, Jagirs Abolition Act, provides that every award under s. 13 or
B
c
D
E
F
G
or s. 14 shall be in the form prescribed in s. 26(1), Land Acquisition

## Text

_Characters 0–39,934 of 43,304. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39934 for what follows._

565
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
v.
GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL & ORS.
March 9. 1976
(V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.]
.f
Bo1nbay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act (Bombay 39
of 1954), ss. 8, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 22-Principles of compensatioti-Solatitun
and interest, when payable-'Three multiples', meanin[? of.
Land Acl!uisition Act (1 of 1894), ss. 23 and 26-Solatium, if conipensation.
Code of Civil Procedure (Act 5 of 1908), O. 41, r. 22-Applicability to
tribunals.
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 136-Exercise of discretion under.
On the coming into force of the Bombay Merged Territories And Areas
)- (Jagirs Abolition) Act 1953, on and from August 1, 1954, the jagirs were
abolished and certain properties comprised therein vested in the State. Some compensation was awarded by the Jagir Abolition Officer to the jagirdars on their
application, in respect of certain items. Oq appeal by the jagirdars, the Revenue
Tribunal modified the award. Aggrieved by the decision, both the State and
the jagirdars filed petitions and the High Court decided some points against the
._ State and some against the jagirdars and remanded the matter to the Tribunal.
Both sides appealed to this Court under Art. 136.
On behalf of the State it was contended that : (I) compen~ation for the
unbuilt village site lands; (2) solatium of 15% on the amount of compensation;
and (3) interest on the amount of instalments of compensation, which V.'erc
delayed, ~houl<l not have been awarded. The jagirdars contended that (1) the
expression 'three multiples' in s. 11 (2) means six times and so the compensation
should be six times the assessment and not three times as held by the High
C'ourt; (2) the Bagyat Kas should have been included in the assessment for
the purpose of assessing the compensation; and (3) the Tribunal had no po\Ver
and \Vas not justified in reducing the rates of the value of the villagt: site
lands.
HELD :
The appeals of the State are partly allowed on its 2nd and 3rd
contentions and the appeals of the jagirdars are dismissed.
B
c
D
E
( 1) The jagirdars are entitled to compensation for all unbuilt village. site
F
lands.
[572F]
Section 11(3) provides that any jagirdar having any right or interest in any
property referred to in s. 8 shall, if he proved to the satisfaction of the Collector
that he had any such right or interest, be entitled to compensation in the manner
provided in clauses (i) to (iii). In these clauses there is reference only to
3 kinds of property, but there are numerous other properties mentioned in s. 8.
The unbuilt village site land is one such. The jagirdar Vi'Ould be entitled to
compensation for rights or interests in them under s. 11(3), but no manner ot'
avo'arding compensation is indicated therein. Literally the language of sub-s. (3)
does not n1ake sense, and so, it should be understood as proviJing that the
person whose rights had been extinguished is entitled to cOmpensation, in respect
of the properties in which he had an interest. in accordance with the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, but subject to the exceptions provided in clauses (i) to
(iii). [572C-F]
(2) The Legislature did not intend nor did it provide for the payment of
any solatiun1 on the amount of compensation awardable to the jagirdars. [574C]
The concept of compensation means just equivalent or market value of the
property acquired.
Section 23(1), Land Acquisition Act provides that in detrn
G
H
566
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 3 S.C.R.
A
mining compensation various factors over nnd nbove the market value are to lie
taken into account.
Section 23(2) provides for the payment of 15% of the
market value as solatium in addition to the market value. That the leglslature
did r.ot intend to give any solatium to the jagirdars as compensation is clear'\_
from (a) the Explanation to s. 11 of the Jagirs Abolition Act, which defines
rr1arket value, refers only to s. 23(1) and nots. 23(2), Land Acquisition Act; .J
(b) Section 15, Jagirs Abolition Act, provides that every award under s. 13 or
B
c
D
E
F
G
or s. 14 shall be in the form prescribed in s. 26(1), Land Acquisition Act
but solatium is not mentioned in the prescribed form of the award unde.r s. 26(1);
and (c) solatium is awarded as a special compensation in consideration of the
compulsory nature of the acquisition.
But when Jagirs
are
abolished
and •
acquired as a measure of agrarian reform even without payment of market
value as con1pensation, the Legislature could not have intended to award any
solatium in addition.
[573H-574C]
State of Gujarat etc. v. Vaktsinghji Sursinghji Baghela & Ors. fl9681 3
S.C.R. 692. referred to.
R. D. Suryanarayana Rao v. The Re11enue Divisional Officer. Land ,4cqnisition Officer, Guntur, A.l.R. 1969, A.P. 55 and Kesireddi Appala Swamy and
Ors. v. Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition Officer, Central Railway, Vijayau•ada,
A.LR. 1970 A.P. 139 (approved)
1
(3) Section 22, Jagirs Abolition Act, provides that the amount of compensa:'
tion shall be payable in transferable bonds carrying interest at 3% per annum
from the date of the issue of such bonds and shall be repayable during a period
of 20 years from the date of the issue by equated annual instalments of principal
and interest as provided in the Tables to the Act. Rule 4 of the Rules. framed
under the Act, provides that the date of the coming into force of the Act •
shall be the date of issue of the bond. The ascertainment of the a1nount of
con1pensation is bound to take time and so, the proviso to r. 5 made the instal~
1nents which had fallen due before the delivery of the bond payable in1n1ediately
after its delivery. [574E-575A]
.;
In the present case the Jagirdar was deprived of his property on August 1,
1954, but the bonds \Vere delivered ten years later. The High Court following
Satinder Singh v. A1nrao Singh and others [1961] 3 S.C.R. 676, rightly nllowcd
interest hut erred on two aspects: (a) It awarded interest on the entire amount
of instalments, principal and interest, paid after the lapse of ten years. Interest
'{'
is payable only on the principal amount of instalments but not on the amount
of instalments of interest. (b) The jagirdar would not be entitled to inten .. --st on
the total in!'.italments of the principal for 10 years. On the first instalment he
will get interest for 9 years only, on the second for 8 years only and on the
last instalment for one year only. [575D-F; 576B-D]
( 4) The High Court rightly held that there was no difference between '3
times' and '3 multiples'.
[576G]
Although the Legislature has used the two expressions, one in some places
and the other in other places, it was done without any significance or variation.
The expression 'equivalent to 3 multiples' is used in the sense of comn1on par~
lance and not in a technical, mathematical or scientific sense. rs76F-G]
(5) (a) Bagyat Kas is not a part of the assessment fixed for the land within
the meaning of s. 11 (2).
'Kas' n1eans tax. Bagyat lands are those which have irrigational facilities of
water fron1 ·wells etc.
On such land, apart from the assessment fixed, Bagyat
~
kas was also levied. It could not be contended by the jagirdar that Bagyat kiis
was a part of the land assessment, because, in the records of the jagirdars, Bagyat
kas was shown separately from the amount of assessment on land. If it \vas
only a different kind of assessment fixed for a different type of land, then
H
there was no necessity of showing it as a separate item. [577B-El
..:
(b) No separate compensation has been provided for the toss of the Bagyat
ka~ which the jagirdars were realising, but it is for the Legislature to provide
and Courts cannot help.
[577F]
I
I
)
t ,
•
GUJARAT v. REVENUE TRIBUNAL (Untwa/ia, J.)
567
(6) ·raking the totality of the circumstances the jagirdar's appeal on the
A
last point, is not a fit case for interference by this Court under Art. 136.
Under s. 16 read with s. 17, Jagirs Abolition .Act, the State has no right
of appeal to the Tribunal.
The State could not, also have challenged under
0. 41. r. 22. C.P.C. the rates of compensation given by the Jagir Abolition
Officer.
But in appeal filed by the jagirdar the
State persuaded the Tribunal
to reduce the rates of compensation in some cases.
Since, howev~r, the area
of the village site lands was increased by the Tribunal, as it was of the opinion
B
that certnin lands were wrongly excluded by the Jagir Abolition Officer, the
net result wa~ that in spite of the reduction of rates, more compensation was
payable to the jagirdars for the village site lands. [577G-578C]
The Management of Itakhoolie Tea Estate v. Its Worknzen, A.I.R. 1960 S.C.
1349, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1804 and
1805 of 1970 and 1968 of 1970.
(Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated the
27tl1/28th August, 1969 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil
Application Nos. 868 and 891 of 1965).
S. T. Desai, G. A. Shah and M. N. Shroff, for the appellants in
CAs 1804-1805/70 & for respondents 1 & 2 in CA 1968/70.
V. M. Tarkunde, I. N. Shroff and H. S. Parihar, for respondents
2 & 3 in CAs 1804-1805/70 and for appellants in CAs 1968/70.
D. V. Patel, S. N. Parikh and M. Qamaruddin, for the interveners
in CA 1804/70.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
D
UNTWALIA, J.-These three appeals by special leave arise out of
E
a common judgment of the Gujarat High Court and in them are involved some common questions of law as to the interpretation of
certain provisions of the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs
Abolition) Act, 1953-Bombay Act No. XXXIX of 1954-hereinafter referred to as the Act or the Jagirs Abolition Act.
The three
appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this
judgment.
F
On coming into force of the Act on and from !st August, 1954
the Jagirs of the Jagirdars were abolished and certain properties comprised in the jagirs vested in the State. The J agirdars filed before the
Collector applications for award of compensation under the Act in
respect of certain properties. The J agir Abolition Officer authorised
to act as the Collector under the Act awarded some compensation to
G
the Jagirdars in respect of some items of the properties, refused in
respect of some and made his award on the 30th July, 1963.
The
Jagirdars (which expression would include their heirs also) filed an
appeal under section 16 of the Act before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. Ahmedabad.
The Tribunal modified the award of the Jagir
Abolition Officer in some respects and disposed of the appeal on the
2/3rd December, 1964. Two Special Civil Applications under Article
H
227 of the Constitution of India were filed in the High Court from
the decision of the Revenue Tribunal-one by the Jagirdars and the
other by the State of Gujarat. The High Court bas disposed of the
A
B
c
D
568
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1976] 3 S.C.R.
two applications by a common judgment dated the 27 /28th August,
1969, decided some points against the jagirdars and some against the
State and remanded the case to the Revenue Tribunal for a fresh
decision in the light of thejudgment. Feeling aggrieved by the decision
of the High Court in the two Special Civil Applications, the State of
Gujarat has preferred Civil Appeals 1804 and 1805 of 1970 on grant
of special leave by this Court.
The Jagirdars also obtained special
leave and filed Civil Appeal No. 1968 of 1970.
Under section 3 of the Act on and from the appointed date i.e.
1st August, 1954 all Jagirs were deemed to have been abolished. Section
5 provided as to who were to be the occupants of certain types of
l~nds in a proprietary jagir village.
Similarly section 6 referred to
the persons who were to be the occupants in life-time Jiwai Jagir. The
rates of assessment were to be fixed under section 7. Section 8 provided for the vesting of the properties enumerated therein in the State
Government and the extinguishment of the rights of the Jagirdars
thereunder. Section 9 deals with right to trees and section 10 refers .,
to mines or mineral products. Section 11 provides for compensation
to jagirdar and section 12 makes provision for compensation to life-time
Jiwai Jagirdars.
The method of awarding compensation to Jagirdar
is indicated in section 13 and the method of awarding compensation
for abolition etc. of rights of other persons in the property is provided
t
in section 14.
Section 15 makes applicable provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 in the making of an award.
In the High Court the concerned Jagirdars challenged the order
E
of the Revenue Tribunal in respect of 8 matters enumerated in its
judgment. The State challenged the decision of the Tribunal in regard
to 3 matters only. In these appeals we were not called upon to decide
the correctness of the High Court's judgment in regard to each and
1
every item.
In argument the points of controversy were confined only
to a few on either side.
On behalf of the State Mr. S. T. Desai at
the end of his argument endeavoured to challenge the decision of the
F
High Court directing the award of some compensation for the Bhatha
lands in the river beds and the trees in certain other lands but eventual-
·ly could not press these points by advancing any argument of substance.
It is, therefore, not necessary for us to deal with these two items in any
detail. We merely uphold the order of the High Court in this regard.
On behalf of the State the strenuous attack was on the question of
G
compensation for the unbuilt village site lands, award of solatium
of 15 % on the amount of compensation and award of interest on the
amounts of instalments the payment of which was delayed. Mr. V. M.
Tarkunde, appearing for the J agirdars, followed by Mr. D. V. Patel,
appearing for some of the intervener jagirdars attacked the decision
of the High Court on three counts :-
H
( 1) that the expression three multiples occuring in subsection (2) of section 11 of the Act means at least
six times of the assessment and not three times as
held by the High . Court;
I
•
GUJARAT v. REVENUE TRIBUNAL (Untwalia, /.)
569
(2) that Bagayat kas forms part of the assessment fixed
for the land within the meaning of sub-section ( 2)
of section 11 and in awarding compensation under tlte
said provision of law the amount of Bagayat kas was
erroneously excluded from the assessment;
(3) that the Revenue Tribunal had neither any power nor
was it justified in reducing the rates of the value of
the village site lands.
We shall deal with the six points aforesaid in order we have mentioned a hove.
Apart from the other Acts which were before the Legislature when
the Jagirs Abolition Act was passed in the year 1954 The Bombay
Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949-hereinafter called the Taluqdari Act passed by the Bombay Legislature was very much there before
the ·Same legislative body.
Yet we are grieved to find a confusion,
meaningless and unpurposeful departure in the wordings of the Jagirs
Abolition Act from those of the Taluqdari Act.
If the legislature
intended to make any departure from the provisions of the earlier act,
to avoid unnecessary controversy and arguments in courts, it ought
to have done so in clear and unambiguous language. Section 7 ( 1) (b)
of the Taluqdari Act provided for the Collector to make an award in
the manner prescribed in section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act but
subject to the conditions and exceptions provided in sub-clauses (i),
(ii) and (iii). In the Explanation appended to the section the market
value was meant to mean the value as estimated in accordance with
the provisions of sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act in
so far as such provisions may be applicable.
Interpreting the said
provision of law in the case of State of Gujara.t etc. v. Vakhtsingh1i
Sursinghji Vaghela & Ors.('). Bachawat, J delivering the judgment
on behalf of a Constitution Bench of this Court has said at page 701
"Section 7 (I) gives compensation to taluqdars for extinguishment of rights in any property under section 6. The
A
B
c
D
E
Collector is required by sec. 7 ( 1) (b) to make an award in the
F
manner prescribed in section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894. The Collector has to make an award of compensation
under sec. 11 and having regard to sec. 15 in determining
the amount of compensation, he is guided by the provisions
of secs. 23 and 24. Section 23 ( 1) ·requires an award of the
market value of the land. Section 23(2) requires an additional award of a sum of fifteen per centum on such market
G
value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition. It follows that under sec. 7 (1) (b) of the Abolition Act
read with section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, the taluqdars are entitled to receive as compensation the market value
of all rights in any property extinguished under sec. 6 and
in addition a sum of 15 per centum on such market value.
This right is subject to the conditions and exceptions enumeH
rated in sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of section 7(1){b).
(I) !19681 3 S.C.R. 692.
4-608SCl/76
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
570
"SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 3 S.C.R.
In cases falling under clause (i) and in some cases under
clause (ii) the amount of compensation is limited. In cases
falling under clause (iii) and in some cases under clause (ii)
the amount of compensation is the "market value" which
according to the explanation to sec. 7 (1) means the value
estimated in tccordance with sections 23 and 24 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894.
The value so determined includes
the solatium of 15 per centum payable under sub-section (2)
of s. 23. Where the legislature intended to exclude the application of sub-section (2) of sec. 23, it has
said so, as in
section 14(2) under which compensation is determined in
accordance with the provisions of sub-section (I) of sections
23 and 24.
It follows that the taluqdar is entitled to the
solatium of 15 per centum on the market value, (I) under
the main part of sec. 7 (1 )(b) subject to the provisions of
the several sub-clauses thereof : (2) in cases falling under
clause (iii) of section 7(1) (b) and (3) in cases under clause
(ii) of section 7(1) (b) where market value is awarded.
The direction of the High Court is modified accordingly."
Sub-section (2) of section 7 of the Taluqdari Act reads as follows :
"Every award made under sub-section (1) shall be in. the
form prescribed in section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, and the provisions of the said Act, sh<>ll, so far as may
be, apply to the making of such award."
It is to be noticed that because of the clear provision in clause (b)
and the Explanation, no significance was attached to what has been
provided in sub-section (2).
Section 8 of the Jagir Abolition Act says :
"All public roads, etc., situate in jagir villages ta vest in
Government-All public roads, lanes and paths, the bridges
ditches, dikes and fences, on or beside the same, the bed of
the sea and of harbours, creeks below high water mark, and
of rivers, streams, nalas, lakes, wells and tanks, and all canals
and water courses, and all standing and flowing water, all
unbuilt village site lands, all waste lands and all uncultivated
lands (excluding lands used for building or other non-agricultural purposes) which are situate within the limits of any
jagir village, shall, except in so far as any rights of any
person other than the jagirdar may be established in or over
the same and except as may otherwise be provided by anv
law for the time being in force, vest in and shall be deeme;I
to be. with all rights in or over the same or appertaining
thereto, the property of the State Government and all rights
held by a jagirdar in such property shall be deemed to have
been extin!!Uished and it shall be lawful for the Collector,
subject to the general or special orders of the State Government, to dispose them of as he deems fit subject always to
the rights of way and other rights of the public or of individuals legally subsisting."
s
j
I
)-
I
GUJARAT v. REVENUE TRIBUNAL ( Untwalia, J.)
5 71
Since in these appeals we are concerned with proprietary Jagirs we
shall read sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 11. They provide:
"(2) In the case of a proprietary jagir, in respect of land
held by a permanent holder the jagirdar shall be entitled to
compensation equivalent to three multiples of the assessment
for such land.
(3) Any jagirdar having any right or interest in any property referred to in section 8 shall, if he proves to the satisfaction of the Collector that he had any such right or interest,
be
entitled to
compensation
in the
following manner,
namely :-
A
B
(i) if the property in question is waste or uncultivated
but is cultivable land, the amount of compensation shall not
C
exceed three times the assessment of the land :
Provided that if the land has not been assessed the amount
of compensation shall not exceed such amount of assessment
as would be leviable, in the same village on the same extent
of similar land used for the same purpose;
(ii) If the property in question is land over which the
public has been enjoying or has acquired a right of way or
any individual has any right of easement, the amount of compensation shall not exceed the amount of the annual assessment leviable in the village for uncultivated land in accordance
with the rules made under the Code or if such rules do not
provide for the levy of such assessment, such amount as in
the opinion of the Collector shall be the market value of the
right or interest held by tJ;ie claimant;
(iii) If there are any trees or structures on the land, the
amount of compensation shall be the market value of such
trees or structures, as the case may be.
D
E
Exp/anation.-For the purposes of this section, the "market value" shall mean the value as estimated in accordance
F
with the provisions of sub-section ( 1) of section 23 and
section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1 894 ( 1 of 1 894)
in so far as the said provisions may be applicable."
As in section 7(1) (a) of the Taluqdari Act a provision was made
in sub-section ( 1) of section 13 of the Jagirs Abolition Act for the
making of an application to the Collector for determining the amount
G
of compensation payable to the Jagirdars under sections 11 or 12.
Sub-section (2) of section 13 says :
"On receipt of an application under sub-section (1), the
Collector shall, after making formal enquiry in the manner
provided by the Code make an award determining the amount
of compensation. Where there is a rn-sharer of a jagirdar
H
claiming compensation, the Collector shall by his award
apportion the compensation between the Jagirdar and the
co-sharer.,,
,
':~·. l~;
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
572
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1976] 3 S.C.R.
There is a clear departure in section 13(2) from the language of
section 7 (1) (b) of the Talnqdari Act.
In the former it is merely
provided that the Collector shall make a formal enquiry in the manner
provided in the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 and make a11
award determining the amount of compensation.
Here there is uo
reference to section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 15 of
the Jagirs Abolition Act reads as follows and is at par with subsection (2) of section 7 of the Taluqdari Act.
"Every award made under section 13 or 14 shall be in
the form prescribed in section 26 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (I of 1894), and the provisions of the said Act
shall, so far as may be, apply to the making of such award."
In section 11(3) of the Act the langnage used is very unsatisfactory.
Instead of providing that the person whose rights had been extinguished would be entitled to compensation in respect of the properties in
which he had an interest in accordance with the Land Acquision Act
but only subject to the exceptions provided in clauses (i), (ii) and
(iii), what is provided in sub-section (3) of section 11 is that the
Jagirdar will be entitled to compensation in respect of any property
in which he has any right or interest, but in the manner provided in
clauses (i) to (iii). Literally the wordings of the two parts of subsection ( 3) are contradictory and carry not much sense.
In subclauses (i), (ii) and (iii) are more or less repeated sub-clauses (i)
to (iii) of section 7(1)(b) of the Taluqdari Act. No manner
of
awarding compensation is indicated in the sub-clauses of section 11 (3)
for awarding of compensation in respect of any other property in
which the Jagirdar had any right or interest.
Apart from the three
kinds of property included in sub'claus~s·(i) to (iii) there are numerous
other properties mentioned in section 8 in some of which the Jagirdar
may have a right or interest thus entitling him to have compensation
under the first part of section 11 (3). The unbuilt village site land
is one such property. Hence as a matter of construction of sub-section
(3) of section 11 of the Act we hold that the Jagirdars are entitled
to compensation for all unbuilt village site lands in which they could
prove to have any right or interest.
We may add that the right of
the Jagirdars to claim compensation for the village site lands was not
challenged on behalf of the State before the COurts or authorities
below. Nor was Mr. Desai able to press this point in this COurt with
such or much convincingness or vehemence as he did in respect of
the points of solatium and interest.
Apropos the point of solatium, it may be pointed out at the outset
that the sheet anchor of the Jagirdars in the High Conrt, as here, has
been the decision of this Court in Vakhtsinghji's case (supra). The
High Court a warded solatinm of 15 % on the amonnt of compensation
following the said decision. We are unable to uphold the view of the
High Court in this regard.
Ordinarily and generally as pointed out in several earlier decisions
of this Court while dealing with the interpretation of Article 31 (2)
of the Conslitution of India the concept of compensation means just •
'
•
•
j
•
GUJARAT v. REVENUE TRJBU!-\AL ( Untwa/ia, J.)
57 3
equivalent or market va1ue of the property acquired. Under the various
clauses of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act
for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation are taken
into account some other factors over and above the market value of
the land.
Sub-section (2) says
"In addition to the market-value of the land, as above
provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of fifteen
per centum on such market-value, in consideration of the
compulsory nature of the acquisition."
The Collector because of section 15 of the Land Acquisition Act is
obliged to be guided by the provisions contained in sections 23 and
24 while determining the amount of compensation and thus to award
solatium of 15% also.
But it is to be noticed that section 26(1)
requires every award to specify the amount awarded under clause
first of sub-section (!) of section 23, and also the amounts (if any)
awarded under each of the other clauses of the same sub-section. The
amount of solatium of 15 % which the Court is obliged to award under
section (2) of section 23, strictly speaking, is not a part of the award
of compensation as it is not to be mentioned in the prescribed form
of the award under section 26(1). Jaganmohan Reddy, C.J. delivering the judgment of a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
in R. D. Suryanarayana Rao v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Land
Acquisition Officer, Guntur(I) observed at page 57 column 2 :
"The compensation as computed under Section 23 (1) is
the amount which has to be set out in the award passed
under Section 26(1) and it is that award which is deemed to
be a decree under sub-section (2) of section 26. It may be
pertinent to notice that neither solatium under sub-section
(2) of section 23, nor interest under Section 34 forms part
of the award."
· '
The learned Chief Justice in another Full Bench decision in the case
A
B
c
D
E
of Kesireddi Appa/a Swamy and others v. Special Tehsildar, Land
Acquisition Officer, Central Rly., Vijayawada(') said at paragraph
F
14 at page 145 :
"In our view, the result of the foregoing discussion is that
15 per cent of the market value to be added under Section
23(2) to the compensation awarded under Section 23(1) is
not part of the award which has to be passed by the Court
within the meaning of Section 26."
G
It is to be remembered that the awarding of solatium of 15 per
centum under sub-section (2) of section 23 of the Land Acquisition
Act is a special compensation in consideration of the compulsory
nature of the acquisition. In absence of an express provision such as
was there in the Taluqdari Act when Jagirs were abolished and acquired as a measure of agrarian reform even without the payment of market value as compensation it is straining one's imagination to hold that
H
the intention of the legislature was to award 15 % solatium in view
(I) A.1.R. 1969 A.P. 55.
(2) A.LR. 1970 A.P. 139 .
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
574
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1976] 3 S.C.R.
of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. It may be added here
that because of Article 3 lA of the Constitution the vires of the Act was
upheld by this Court in Maharaj Umeg Singh and others v. The State
of Bombay and others('). As we have pointed out above there is no
reference to section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act in section 13(2)
of the Act. The intention of the legislature that it did not intend to
give any solatium is clear from the fact that unlike the Explanation
appended to section 7 (1) of the Taluqdari Act in the Explanation to
section 11 of the Jagirs Abolition Act reference is made to sub-section
( 1) only of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Similar is the
provision in sub-section (2) of section 14. To crown all, in section 15
where the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act have been applied
to the making of an award, care has been taken to say that every
award made under section 13 or 14 shall be in the form prescribed
in section 26. In our opinion, therefore, the Legislature did not intend
nor did it provide to give any solatium on the amount of compensation
awardable to the erstwhile Jagirdar.
Coming to the question of interest we find the judgment of the
High Court to be correct in substance but not clear or right in form.
Section 22 of the Act says :
"The amount of compensation payable under the provisions of this Act shall be payable in transferable bonds carrying interest at the rate of three per cent per annum from the
date of the issue of such bonds and shall be repayable during
a period of twenty years from the date of the issue of such
bonds by equated annual instalments of principal and interest.
The bonds shall be of such denomination and shall be in such
forms as may as prescribed."
The Bombay Merged Territories And Areas (Jagirs Abolition Compensation Bonds) Rules, 1956 were framed by the State Government
under section 25 of the Act. They will be called hereinafter the Rules.
Rule 4 provides : "The .elate of the coming into force of the Act shall
be the elate of issue of such bond." In other words irrespective of the
actual date of the issuance of the bond the bond will be deemed to
have been issued on !st August. 1954 on which date the Act came
into force. Rule 5 of the Rules reads as under :
"Annual instalment and repayment-Every such bond
shall be repayable in equated annua;l instalments in accordance with the repayment Schedule in Form 8 and Table I
to VII in Form C :
Provided that if one or more instalments have fallen due
before the delivery of the bond and have not been paid
already, such instalments or any balance thereof shall be
payable immediately after the delivery of the bond."
The ascertainment of the amount of compensation payable to the erstwhile Jagirdars was bound to take time. The proviso to Rule 5, therefore, made the instalments which had fallen due before the delivery
(1) [1955] 2 S.C.R. 164.
j
\
/
>
I
GUJARAT v. REVENUE TRIBUNAL (Untwalia, J.)
575
of the bond payable immediately after its delivery. Roughly speaking
A
in the case in hand the bonds were delivered
about 10 years later.
Question for consideration is whether the
State was
liable to pay
isterest for the period of 1 O years, if so, what amount ?
The intention of the legislature in section 22 is clear that the bonds
were to carry interest @ 3 % per annum from the date of issue of such
bonds and were repayable during a period of 20 years. Suppose the
B
bond could be issued on the 1st of August, 1954, although it was not
practicable to do so, the Jagirdar according to the tables appended to
the Rules would have got the amount of principal with the requisite
amount of interest every year starting from 1st of August, 1955. But
because of the delay which was unavoidable in the delivery of the
bonds the claimant could get the instalments-say 10 instalments only
at the end of the I 0th year.
Because of the legal fiction introduced
c
by Rules 4 and 5 the Jagirdar got all the 10 instalments of principal
and interest in one lump sum but after a delay of I 0 years.
The
question for consideration is whether the Jagirdar was entitled to any
interest on the sums of 10 instalments paid to him at one time after
the lapse of 1 0 years.·
The High Court relying upon the decision of this Court in Satindcr
Si"gh and others v. Amrao Singh and others(!) has allowed the claim
of interest, but seems to have allowed it on the entire amount of instalments including the principal and interest paid after the lapse of 10
years.
In our opinion the awarding of interest on the delayed payments is justified but not on the entire amount of instalments. Interest
would be payable only
on the
principal amount of instalments.
Interest will not be payable on the amount of instalments of interest.
Messrs Tarkunde and Patel conceded that this was the correct position
in law.
We do not feel persuaded to accede to the submission of
Mr. Desai that on the delayed payments of instalments no interest was
payable at all because under the proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules the
back instalments became payable only on the delivery of the bonds.
Ganjendragadkar, J as he then was, has said in Satinder Singh's case
(supra) at page 693 :
"What then is the contention raised by the claiments ?
They contend that their immovable property has been acquired by the State and the State has taken possession of it.
Thus they have been deprived of the right to receive the income from the property and there is a time lag between the
taking of the possession by the State and the payment of compensation by it to the claimants.
During this period they
have been deprived of the income of the property and they
have not been able to receive interest from the amount of
compensation.
Stated broadlv the act of taking possession
of immovable property generally implies an agreement to pay
interest on the value of the property and it is on this principle that a claim for interest is made against the State."
Even without pressing into service section 34 of the Land Acquisi-
'.ion Act on the principles enunciated by this Court in Satinder Singh's
--~--
(!) [1961]
3 S.C.R.
676.
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
ff
576
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 3 S.C.R.
case and in the background of the intention of the legislature to award
3 % interest it is legitimate to hold fuat interest was payable on the
arrears of the principal amount of instalments.
To avoid any confusion, we shall illustrate our view point with reference to Table No. II
appended to the Rules.
Suppose the first 1 O instalments of interest
and principal fell due when the bonds were delivered to the erstwhile
Jagirdar, then all the 10 instalments of interest and principal became
payable, and we are told, were paid after the delivery of the bonds.
The Jagirdar was deprived of his property on the coming into force of
the Act i.e. the !st August, 1954.
He was, therefore, entitled to
interest on the amount of delayed payment of compensation. But the
delay will have to be taken into account only with reference to the
total amount of the 10 instalments of the principal sums the first being
Rs. 3. 73 and the last being Rs. 4.87 as mentioned in Table II. The
Jagirdar is not entitled to any interest on the delayed payments of the
amounts of interest.
One more precise statement and clarification
in this regard is also necessary. The Jagirdar will not get interest at
3 % on the total I 0 instalments of principal for 10 years.
On the
first amount of Rs. 3.73 he will get interest 3% for 9 years. On the
second instalment of Rs. 3.84 he will get interest at the said rate for
8 years and so on and so forth.
On the last amount of Rs. 4.87 he
will get interest for one year only @ 3 % .
This disposes of the three points urged on behalf of the States.
Now we proceed to discuss the other three points urged on behalf of
the Jagirdars-either the respondents or the interveners.
Although it is true that the Legislatnre has in the Act used two
kinds of expressions-somewhere 3 times and somewhere 3 multiples,
it seems to have been so done without any significance or variation
in the provision.
In sub-section (1) of section 11 the expression 3
times has been used because it is followed by the expression "the
average of the land revenue". Similar is the position in section 12.
But because in snb-section (2) of section 11 the expression is "the
assessment fixed" for indicating the amount of compensation the expression used is "equivalent to 3 multiples". The expression seems to
have been used in a sense of common parlance and not in a technical,
mathematic&! or scientifical sense. In the context we have no doubt
in our mind that the expression "3 multiples" means 3 times and not
6 times. The High Court in the judgment under appeal has followed
the decision of Dewan, J as he then was, in Special Civil Application
No. 469 of 1971 decided on 12-2-1964. In our opinion the learned
Judge rightly held that there was no difference between 3 times and
3 multiples.
The problem of Bagayat kasar or Bagayat kas presented s01:ne
difficulty. , Mehta J in the judgment under appeal has agreed
with
and followed the 'decision of Dewan, J dated 12-2-1964 in Special
Civil Application Nos. 629 and 630 of 1961 and held that the amount
of Bagayat kas was rightly exclnded while fixing the amount of compensation under section 11 (2) of the Act.
Messrs Tarkunde and
Patel took great pains to persuade us to take a contrary view.
Tue
-(
'
GUJARAT v. REVENUE TRIBUNAL (Umwa/ia, J.)
577
argument advanced by them on the first look appeared to be attractive
and forceful but did not stand closer scrutiny.
Dewan, J has pointed
out in his judgment referred to above on a consideration of the
j various old records and reports as also the Bhagwadgomandal dictionary that 'kas' or 'kasar' means a tax. Bagayat lands are those which
have got irrigational facilities by water from well, kundi etc.
On such
land apart from the amount of assessment fixed was also levied Bagayat
kas.
In the records of the Jagirdars invariably the
amount of
Bagayat kas was shown separately than the amount of assessment on
land.
The Jagir Abolition Officer, the Revenue Tribunal and
the
Gujarat High Court from time to time have held that while determining the amount of compensation under section 11 (2) the amount of
Bagayat kas is not to be taken into account.
We see no sufficient
reason to enable us to take a view different from the one taken by the
local authorities and the High Court of the State.
It was argued with
some force on behalf of the Jagirdars that Bagayat kas was a part of
the land assessment although separately shown.
There was nothing to
show that the wells had to be constructed or maintained by the Jagir-
,~ dars to enable them to realize Bagayat kas.
That being so, in
substance and in effect, it was argued, that it was an extra
assessment fixed on the land which had the facility of irrigation
by water from wells or the
like.
We could not accept the
argument of the Jagirdars to be wholly correct.