# STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. LAXMAN ABAJI Ii: ANR

- **Citation:** [1971] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 412
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1971
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 2531 ·G and 2533 of 1966
- **Bench:** C. A. Vaidialimgam, A. N. Ray
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-maharashtra-v-laxman-abaji-ii-anr-5260
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act, 1954 (Act VIII of 1955)- Lant1·
lord and Tenant-Relationship if continued to subsist between date of abolition of lnams vesting land in .rhe state and date of coming into force uf
the entire A.ct.
On tho question whether tho relationship of landlord and tenant continued to subsist between July 20, 1955 when tho inams wore abolished
and tho land vested in tho State under tho Hyderabad Abolition of loams
Act, 1954 (VIII of 19.SS) and July I, 1960 when a notification under '·
1(3)(b) of the Act made the entire Act applicable,
HELD: Though the loams were abolished and the land vested in the
State bv reason of s. 3(1) of the Act the rights and interests ol landlord
and tenant mentioned in s. 3(2) (b) wore preserved by s. 33 inasmuch as
s. 3(2) els. (d), (g}, (h) and (i) did not come into effect until July I, 1960.
The crucial date for grant of o'·cupancy rights under the 1955 Act is July
1, 1960 when the entire Act including, in particular, the provisions regard·
ing grant of occupancy rights and els. (d), (g), (h) and (i) of s. 3(2) came
into effect. The relation between landlord and tenant ceased on July J,
1960 and if any tenant surrendered possession prior to July I, 1960, and
the inarndar accepted such surrender and remained in possession of the
land on the relevant date, i.e., July I, 1960, the inamdar would be entitkd
to grant of occupancy rights. On the other hand if the tenant claimed
to be in possession of the land on the relevant date and the inamdar also
claimed to be in possession the Government will have to ascertai:t as to
who was lawfully in possession on the relevant date. [416E; 417G].
Dattatraya Sadashiv Dand v. Ganpati Raghu Gao/I, 67 B.L.R. 521, approved.
Ji'
CIVIL APPELLATE
JuRISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 2531
·G
and 2533 of 1966.
Appeals from the judgments and orders dated April I, 1965
of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Applications Nos. 804
and 697 of 1964 respectively.
M. C. Bhandare, Badri Das Sharma for S. P. Nayar, for the
appellant (in both the appeals).
W. S. Barlingay and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for respondent No. 1
(in C. A. No. 2533 of 1966).
B

## Text

412
B
c
D
E
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
v.
LAXMAN ABAJI Ii: ANR.
A.j1rll 20, 1!171
[C. A. VAIDIALIMGAM AND A. N. RAY, JJ.)
Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act, 1954 (Act VIII of 1955)- Lant1·
lord and Tenant-Relationship if continued to subsist between date of abolition of lnams vesting land in .rhe state and date of coming into force uf
the entire A.ct.
On tho question whether tho relationship of landlord and tenant continued to subsist between July 20, 1955 when tho inams wore abolished
and tho land vested in tho State under tho Hyderabad Abolition of loams
Act, 1954 (VIII of 19.SS) and July I, 1960 when a notification under '·
1(3)(b) of the Act made the entire Act applicable,
HELD: Though the loams were abolished and the land vested in the
State bv reason of s. 3(1) of the Act the rights and interests ol landlord
and tenant mentioned in s. 3(2) (b) wore preserved by s. 33 inasmuch as
s. 3(2) els. (d), (g}, (h) and (i) did not come into effect until July I, 1960.
The crucial date for grant of o'·cupancy rights under the 1955 Act is July
1, 1960 when the entire Act including, in particular, the provisions regard·
ing grant of occupancy rights and els. (d), (g), (h) and (i) of s. 3(2) came
into effect. The relation between landlord and tenant ceased on July J,
1960 and if any tenant surrendered possession prior to July I, 1960, and
the inarndar accepted such surrender and remained in possession of the
land on the relevant date, i.e., July I, 1960, the inamdar would be entitkd
to grant of occupancy rights. On the other hand if the tenant claimed
to be in possession of the land on the relevant date and the inamdar also
claimed to be in possession the Government will have to ascertai:t as to
who was lawfully in possession on the relevant date. [416E; 417G].
Dattatraya Sadashiv Dand v. Ganpati Raghu Gao/I, 67 B.L.R. 521, approved.
Ji'
CIVIL APPELLATE
JuRISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 2531
·G
and 2533 of 1966.
Appeals from the judgments and orders dated April I, 1965
of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Applications Nos. 804
and 697 of 1964 respectively.
M. C. Bhandare, Badri Das Sharma for S. P. Nayar, for the
appellant (in both the appeals).
W. S. Barlingay and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for respondent No. 1
(in C. A. No. 2533 of 1966).
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ray, J.-These two appeals are by certificate from two judgm~ts dated I April, 1965 of the Bombay High Court.
M~ASHTllA V. LAXMAN{.Rqy,J.)
41~
lloth the appeals turn on the question as to wJleUier the ~laA.
tionsbip of llindlord and tenant continued to subsist between 20
J .uly, 1955 when the irt<Ulls were abolisl)ed by and the land vested
in the State under the Hyderabad Abolition of loams Act, 19.54
being Act VIII of 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 1955 Act)
and I July, 1960 when a notification under section 1(3) (b) of the•
1955 Act made the entire 1955 Act applicable.
,B
The contention on behalf of the State was that when the 1955
Act C<Ulle into existence on 20 July, 1955 in<U11s were abolished and
theland vested in the State, and, therefore, the relationship between
the in<U11dar landlord and the tenant in respect of the in<Ull land
ceased.
The contention on behalf of the in<U11dar and the tenant
on the other hand was that though inams were abolished and the
!!
land vested in the State on the coming into force of the 1955 Act
on 20 July, 1955 the relationship of inamdar landlord and tenant
continued upto 1 July, 1960 because all the provisions of the 1955
Act did not come into effect until 1 July, 1960 and those which
did not come into operation had the effect of saving and preserving the relationship between in<U11dar landlord and tenant. The
D
High Court upheld the contention of the in<U11dar landlord and
the tenant.
The 19.55 Act received the assent of the President on 16 July,
1955 and was published in the Hyderabad Gazeue Extra-ordinary
on 20 July, 1955.
Under section 1(3) (a) of the said 1955 Act
:E
sections l, 2, 3 (except clauses (d), (g), (h) and (i) of sub-section
(2) of section 3), sections 30 to 34 .(both inclusive), section 35 to
the extent to which it enabled rules to be made for the purposes
of the aforesaid sections, section 36 and section 37 of the 1955
Act came into force on the date of the publication of the 1955 Act
in the official Gazette.
The other important provision is section
I (3) (b) .of Uie 19.55 Act which enacted that !he rest .of the Act
J'
"shall come into force on such date as the Government may, by
notifi.qi,tion in the olti~ial Gazette, appoint in this behalf".
It may be stated here that the short title of the 1955 Act was
H~rabad Abolition of loams Act, 1954.
By .!he Hyderabad
AAbolition haof Inedams (AmH edndmbent) AAct, 1!959 the title of the 1955
G
ct was c ng
to
y era ad
bo 1tion of loams and Cash
Grants Act, 1954.
The Amendment was by reason of the Act
being made applicable to "cash grants and inams in the nature of
community serv'ce, inams and watans" by introducing >"Uh-section
(2A) in section _ of the 1955 Act
The 1959 Amendment Act
came into force on 1 July, 1960 by a gazette notification dated 3
June, 1960.
!here was another 'gazette notification on 3 June, ll
1960 No. HDA-1060-IV-(b)..L-that in exercise of the powers conferred by clause <bl of sub-section (3) of section 1 of the Hyderabad
414
A
B
c
D
E
,
G
H
SUPRElllB OOURT REPORTS
[1971] SUPP. s.c.R.
Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954 the Government of
Maharashtra appointed l July, 1960 to be the date on which the
rest of the said Act "shall come into force".
That is how all
the provisions of the 19.55 Act came into force on l July, 1960.
The State relied on section 3(1) of the 1955 Act in support
of the proposition that the inams were abolished and the land vested in the State, and, the1-efore, the relationship of landlord and
tenant came to an end.
It is noticeable that section 3(2) of the 1955 Act provided
"save as expressly provided by or under the provisions of the Act
and with effect from the date of vesting, the consequences mentioned in clauses (a) to (i.) will ensue". The important clauses in
section 3(2) of the 1955 Act are as follows:-
"(b)-All rights, title and interest vesting in the inamdar, kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant
and non-protected tenant in respect of the inam land, other
than the interests expressly saved by or under provisions
of this Act and inclt1ding those in all communal lands,
cultivated and uncultivated lands .whether assessed or
not), waste lands, pauture lands, forests, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers and· streams, tanks. and irrigation
works, fisheries and ferries, shall cease and be vested absolutely in the State free from all encumberances ;
(d) -all rents artd land revenue including cesses and
royalties, accruing in respect of such inam lands, on or
after the date of vesting, shall be payable to the State and
not to the inamdar, and any payment made in contravention of this clause shall not .be valid.
(g) -the inamdar and any other person whOse rights
have vested in the State under clause (b) shall be entitled
only to compensation. from the Government as provided
for in this Act ;
(h) -the relationship with regard to inam land as
between the
inamdar and kabiz-e-kadim, permanent
tenant, protected tenant or non-protected tenant shall be
extinguished ;
(i) -
the inamdar, kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenant,
protected tenant, and a non-protected tenant of inam
lands and .any persont holding under them and a holder
of a inam, shall as against the Government, be entitled
only to such rights and privileges and be subject to such
conditions as are pmvided for under this Act and any
other rights and privifoges which may have accrued to any
MAHARASHTRA v. LAXMAN (Ray, J.)
of them in the inam before the date of vesting against the
inamdar shall cease and shall not be enforceable against
the Government or the inamdar".
Among these clauses, clause (b) which came into effect on 20
July, 1955 saved from vesting in the State the interests expressly
saved by or under the provisions of the 1955 Act.
As to what
interests were saved or protected from being vested in the State
would be found in section 33 of the 1955 Act and clauses (b), (d),
(g), (h) and (i) of section 3(2) of the 1955 Act.
Section 33 of the
.1955 Act is as follows :-
"Nothing in this Act shall in anyway be deemed to
affect the application of the provisions of the Hyderabad
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, to any inam
or the mutual rights and obligations of an inamdar and
his tenants, save in so far as the said provisions are in
anyway inconsistent with the express provisions of the
AcC'
Section 33 therefore provided first that the application of the
provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
1950 to any inam was not to be affected by the 1955 Act save in
so far as the said provisions were inconsistent with the provisions
of the said 1955 Act
Secondly, section 33 saved the mutual
rights and obligations of an inamdar and his tenant.
It would,
therefore, follow that the combined effect of clause (b) of Section
3(2) and of section 33 of the 1955 Act is that the mutual rights and
obligations of the inamdar and the tenant were not affected by
the 1955 Act.
The rights and obligations of the inamdar would be inter alia
to receive rent and land revenue.
The rights of the tenant on the
other hand would be primarily to continue in possession of the
land and to enjoy its income subject to liability to pay rent and
deliver possession to the inamdar in accordance with the provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950
in so far as the same were applicable.
Oauses (d), (g), (h) and (i) of section 3(2) of the 1955 Act did
not come into effect on 20 July, 1955. Those clauses came into
effect only on 1 July, 1960.
These clauses dealt with some of the
mutual rights and obligations of the landlord and tenants which
were preserved until 1 July, 1966.
Gause (d) deals with rent and land revenue including cesses
and royalties in respect of inam lands on or after the date of vesting -to be payable to the State and not to the inamdar. In view
of the fact that this clause was not brought into operation until
415
A
B
c
D
E·
F
G
H
c
D
G
H
S_UPRllJ,IE COURT REPORTS
[1971] SUPP. S.C.R.
l July, 196() rent jn respect of inam lam! was not payable to the
State on or after tb~ date of vesting, namely, 20 July, 1955 until
the coming into effect of clauses (d), (g), (h) and (i) on I foly, 1960.
Clause (h) dealt wiith extinction of relationship as between
landlord and kabiz-e-kaclim, permanent tenant, protected tenant or
non-protected tenant wi.th regard to inam land.
Kabiz-e-kadim,
permanent tenant, prote:cted tenant and non-protected tenant are
all defined in section 2 of the Act.
Broadly stated, they are all
different categories of tenant.
In view of the fact that clause (d)-
did not come into effect on 20 July, 1955 it follows that the legislative intention was that the _relationship between inamdar and
tenant with regard to inam land would continue and be not extinguished until the provision was made applicable on I July, 1960.
Clause (i) provided that with effect from the date of vesting
rights and p_rivileges which might have accrued to any person in
inam before the date of vesting against the inamdar would cease
and would not be enforceable against the Government or the
inamdar.
Clause (i) did not con;ie into elfect until I July, 1960
and is another illustration of the saving of mutual rights and
obligations .of -the landlord _and the t!mant.
It therefore follows that though the inams were abolished _and
the land vested in !he State by reason of section 3(1) of the 1955
Act the rights and internsts of landlord and tenant mentioned ln
section 3(2) (b) of the 1955 Act were preserved by section 33 of the
1955, Act inasmuch as section 3(2) clauses (d), (g), (h) and \i) of
the 1955 Act did not come into effect until I July, 1960.
Clause (b) of si:otion 2 of the 1955 Act defined the expression
"date of ve~ting".
The Hyderab<1d Abolition of lnams (Amen<;!-
ment) Act, 1956 (Act .10 of 1956)
(hereinafter called the 1956
Amendment Act) which was deemed to have come into force on
20 July, 1955 provi<;!ed as follows :-
"Notwithstanding anything contained in the principal Act, with effect from the date of publication of that
Act in _the official Gazette and till !he comwencement of
the provisions mentioned in clause (b) of sul>-section (3)
of section I of that Act, the full Jan(! revenue, nayaable in respect of every inam abolished and vesting in
the Government und•!r section 3 of that Act, shall be recovered from !he inamdar of such inam as if he were
the occupant of such land and, .on the commencement
of the said provisions of that Act, it shall be recovered
in acco.rdanc.e with those provisions".
MAHARASHTRA•· LAXMAN (Ray, J.)
Section 4 of the 1956 Amendment Act provided for recovery
of land revenue from the inamdar with effect from the date of
publication of the 1955 Act, namely, 20 July, 1955.
Section 4
-of the 1956 Amendment Act was to remain effective and operative till the commencement of the provisions mentioned in section
l (3) (b) of the 1955 Act, namely, 1 July, 1960.
Section 4 of the
1956 Amendment Act provided for recovery of land revenue from'
the inamdar as if he were the occupant of such land.
The words
"as if he were the occupant of such land" indicate that the inamdar was to be treated in possession of the inam.
This was necessary because the grant of occupancy rights mentioned in sections
5 and 6 of the 1955 Act did not come into effect until 1July,1960.
The dominant idea was to continue the relationship of landlord
and tenant in respect of the inam land and to look to the inamdar
only for land revenue by treating him to be an occupant.
Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the 1955 Act deal respectively with
registration of inamdars, kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant and non-protected tenant as occupants.
These occupancy rights under sections 4 to 8 could not be granted before l
July, 1960 when those sections came into force. Upto 1 July.
1960 the mutual rights _and obligations of the landlord and the
tenant were preserved by providing inter alia in section 33 of the
1955 Act, the application of the Tenancy Act. Again, after the
abolition of the inams by the 1955 Act the right of the landlord to
be in possession was preserved. Similarly, the right of the tenant
to continue in possession was preserved. Neither the right of the
landlord nor the right of the tenant was any right which flowed
from any authority or grant of the Government. , These rights
emanated from the protective provisions of the statute. It is
be;;ause of the continuance of the mutual rights and obligations
of the landlord and the tenant that section 4 of the 1956 Amendment Act recognised the inamdar "as if he were in occupation of
the land" for the purpose of land revenue.
This liability of the
inamdar to pay land revenue was provided in order to enable !lie
inamdar to enjoy all his rights including that of revenue in the
inam land.
It may also be noticed here that although the scheme of the
1955 Act was to abolish the inams and to vest the land in the
State, there was no provision in the Act empowering the Government to resume possession.
The relationship between inamdar
and his tenant came to an end on 1 July, 1960 when the State by
reason of the coming into force of sections 4 to 8 of the 1955 Act
granted occupancy rights to persons mentioned in those sections.
In Civil Appeal No. 2531 of 1966 respondent No. 2 Gajya
was inamdar of survey No. 22 measuring 28 acres 15 guntbas
27-1 S.C.!ndia/71
417
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
4i8
SUPREME COURT 11.BPORlll
[1971] SUPP. s.c.R.
A
B
c
D
'E
F
G
H
situated at Azambag Village, '!aluka Gangakhed at Hyderabad.
Respondent No. 1 La~man claimed to be a tenant on the basis
of the lease executed by respondent No. 2 on 9 April, 1950. After
I July, 1960 the Tahsi!dar of Gangakhed too)<: necessary steps to·
co.nfer the occupanc)'. nghts on respondent No. 2 ·in regard to the
said land as he was m -possession of the land on the date of vesting, namely, 20 July, i 955.
Respondent No. 1 objected to the
same and . claimed that he was entitled to the occupancy rights
under section 6 of the Act as he was lawfully in possession of the
said land on 1 July, 1960.
The Tahsildar by his order dated 20
October, 1962 rejected the application of respondent No. 1 and
conferred the occupancy rights on respondent No. 2 as the latter
was .in possession of the disputed land on the date of vesting. Res·
pondent No. I being aggrieved by the order preferred an appeal
to the State Government.
The appeal was dismissed on 24 January, 1964.
Respondent No. 1 thereafter filed an application under
Article 227 of the Constitution in the Bombay High Court.
The
High Court by an orde1 dated 1 April, 1965 set aside the order
made by the Government and the Tahsildar and remanded the
matter to the Tahsildar to hear all parties ,in<.1uding the inamdar
and thereafter decide who was .lawfully in possession of the land
on I July, 1960.
The High Court took the view that the crucial
date for conferment of occupancy rights under the 1955 Act would
be 1 July, 1960 when the entire 1955 Act came into operation and
the relationship of landlord and tenant which was preserved even
after the date of vesting,. namely, 20 July, 1955 came to an end
on 1 July, 1960.
In Civil Appeal No. 2533 of 1966 respondent No. 1 was the
inamdar of three pieces of land measuring In all 69 acres and 3 7
gunthas situated at village Paranda, Taluka Paranda, district
Osmanabad.
Respondent No. 2 was the tenant of respondent No.
I in respect of those lands and was in possession of those lands
on 20 July, 1955.
Some time in the months of May and June,
1956 respondent No. 2 'oluntarily surrendered his tenancy rights
in the land to respondent No. 1.
The surrender was accepted by
the inamdar. The posse:>sion of the land was delivered to respondent No. !.
After the coming into effect of the entire 1955 Act
on I July, 1960, the Tah:>ildar notified that respondent No. 2, the
tenant was entitled to o:cupancy rights under the provisions of
the 1955 Act.
Respondent No. 1 objected and claimed that he
was entitled to the occupancy rights of the land under section 6
of the 1955 Act as he was lawfully in possession of the land on 1
July, 1960 and the respondent No. 2 had surrendered his tenancy
rights in 1956.
The Tahsildar by his order dated 30 June, 1963
conferred the occupancy :rights on respondent No. 2, the tenant as
he was in possession on 20 July, 1955. Respondent No. I, the
inamdar preferred an appeal to the State Government. The State
MAHARASHTRA V. LAXllAN (Ray, J.)
Government rejected the appeal on 24 January, 1964. The inam-
.dar thereafter made an application to the Born bay High Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution.
The High Court by an
order dated 29 March, 1965 held that the material date for the
purpose of grant of occupancy rights was 1 July, 1960 and not the
·date of vesting of the land in the State on 20 July, 1955.
The
High Court further held that on I July, 1960 the inamdar was
lawfully in possession of the land.
The High Court directed that
the Government should recognise the inamdar as occupant under
section 6 of the 1955 Act.
The High Court was right in both the orders.
The crucial
date for grant of occupancy rights under the 1955 Act is I July,
1960 when the entire 1955 Act including in particular the provisions regarding grant of occupancy rights and clauses (d), (g), (h)
and (i) of section 3(2) of the 1955 Act came into effect. The Government became entitled to the possession of the land. The Government became entitled to -grant of occupancy rights.
The
relationship between landlord and tenant ceased on I July, 1960.
If any tenant had surrendered possession prior to 1 July, 1960 as
happened in Civil Appeal No. 2533 of
1966 and the inamdar
accepted such .. surrender and remained in possession of the land
on the relevant date 1 July, 1960 the inamdar would be entitled
to grant of occupancy rights.
On the other hand, if the tenant
claimed to be in possession of the land as in Civil Appeal No. 25311
of 1966 on the relevant date 1 July, 1960 and the inamdar also
·claimed to be in possession, the Government will have to ascertain as to who was lawfully in possession on the material date I
July, 1960.
The Bombay High Court in Dattatraya Sadashiv Dhand v.
<Janpati Raghu Gao/I (') held that the relationship of landlord
and tenant continued up to 1 July, 1960. We are in agreement
with the decision on that point.
For these reasons the appeals fail and are dismissed with
·costs, as of one hearing fee.
4H
A
B
c
D
E
F
K. B. N.
Appeals dismissed.
G
---------
(I) 67 Dom. L. R. 521.