# 'The L111inn o.f India 6- Others Subba Rao ]. GANGADHARRAO NARAYANRAO MAJUMDAR '9 60 v. October .1· THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND ANOTHER

- **Citation:** [1961] 1 S.C.R. 943
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1961
- **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, J. L. Kapur, P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. Subba Rao, K. N. Wanchoo
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-l111inn-o-f-india-6-others-subba-rao-gangadharrao-narayanrao-majumdar-9-60-2188
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Inams-Abolition of Personal Inams-Constitutional validity
of Enactment-" Estate·· '"Right in an estate", meaning of-Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, z952 (Bom. 42 of z953), ss. 4, 5,
7, z7-Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (Bom. 5 of 1879), s. 3(5)
-Constitution of India, Arts. 31, 3I-A.
The appellants held personal inams which were governed
by Bombay Acts Nos. II and VII of 1863 by virtue of which
they held their lands on payment of land revenue . which was
less than the full assessment. After the coming into force of
the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1952, the appellants
who were affected by it challenged the validity of the Act on
the grounds, inter alia, (1) that the property which had been
dealt with under the Act was not an estate.inasmuch as what
ss. 4 and 5 exting11ished was the right of the inamdar to appropriate to himself the difference between the full assessment and
(;1111;:11d/ian ao
.\'(11 a.1·a10-an
J.la,1!01;da,
v.
State of l''J11:bay
!H4
SUPHK\IE COCRT REPORTS
[1961]
lhc quit rent and this \\;is not an cstat(' \vithin the n~(·aning of
Art. .11-A of the Con<t1tution of India, ancl (2) that no compensation had been provided in the Act for taking away the proputy of the app.,IJants.
Held: (1) that the right of the inamdar to appropriate to
himself lhc difference br·t\\·er·n th1• full a~sessrnent anc: the quit
rent \\'as a right in rcs~iect of land revt"nue and \i,as tlu·refnre a
right in an estate by VJTtJJc of th" <lcfmition in Art. 31-A(2)(b).
Such a right also fell under s. 3(5) ,,f the Bombay Land Rcver.11c Code, 187q, and as snct1 it
\\·a~ :-in f'State unrler Art. 31-A.
Acco1dingly, the Act wh"n it extinguished or modified the rights
of inamdars in inam estates was protcrtcd by Art. 31-A.
.
(2) that sub-s. (5) of s. 17 of the Act under which no
compensation was to he paid for tho loss to the inamclar of what
he used to get h<~r.au$C of the dificrenre hf:t\\·~rn the quit rent
and the full a~scssmi'nt, v.·;.is not in\'alid as 1\rt. 31-A saved the
Act from any attack under Art. 31 which was the only Article
providing for compensation.
CIVIL APPF.I.J.ATE
.JuRISDICTIO:>:
Civil Appeals
I\ os. 155 to 160 of 1956.
Appeals from the judgments an<l orders of the Bombay High Court diited July 6, 1954, in Specin.l Civil
Application" Nos. 393, 395, 409 and 632 of l!l54;
July 19, 1954, in 8pecial Ci\'il Application :No. 1205 of
1954; and ,July 30, I 954, in Special CiYil Application
No. 1309 of 1954.
Purshottam Trikamdas, V. M. J,imayP, E. Udaya.
ralru1m and S. S. Shukla, for the itppellants.
H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-Gmeral of Indio,
N. P. Nathwani, [(, L. Hathi and R.H. Dhebar,
for
the respondents.
1960.
October 3.
The .Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
wa .. choo J.
\VANCHOO J.-These six appeals Pn a <:t>rtificatA
granted by the Bombay High Court rais<' a common
question as to the conRtitutionality of the Bombay
Personal Inams Abolition Act, No. XL!l of 1953,
(hereinafter callee! the Act.) and will be disposed of by
t.his judgment. The appellants hold personal inams
which are con.red by Bombay ActA Nos. IT and VII
of 1863. The Act was attacked on a number of
grounds in the High Court of which only two have
-,
I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
945
been urged before us, namely, (i) that the property
1960
which has been dealt with under the Act is not an Gangadhortao
estate and (ii) that no compensation.has been provided
Narayonrao
in the Act for taking away the property of the appelMajumdar
!ants. The writ petitions were opposed by the State
v.
of Bombay and the main contention on its behalf was State of Bombay
that the Act was protected under Art. 31.A of the
-
Wanchoo ],
Constitution.
Before we deal with the two points raised before us,
we should like briefly to refer to the rights which
holders of personal inams had by virtue of Bomba.y
Acts Nos. II and VII of 1863. Act' No. II extended
to certain parts of the Presidency of Bombay and
dealt with holders of lands in those parts who were
holding land

## Text

'
,-
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
943
to 5, the amount of the penalty of Rs. 25,000 should
proportionately be reduced. There is justification
for this contention. But we cannot reduce the amount,
as under s. 183 of the Sea. Customs Act ,the amount
has to be fixed by the concerned officer as he thinks
fit. But as the basis of the order partially disappears,
we give liberty to the appellant to apply to the customs authorities for giving him an option to redeem
the confiscated goods on payment of a. lesser amount,
having regard to the changed circumstances.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the
order of the Collector of Central Excise is accordingly
modified in terms of·the finding given by us.
As the
parties succeeded and failed in part, they are directed
to bear their own costs.
Appeal partly allowed.
A mba Lal
v.
'The L111inn o.f
India 6- Others
Subba Rao ].
GANGADHARRAO NARAYANRAO MAJUMDAR
'9 60
V.
October .1·
THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND ANOTHER
(WITH CONNECTED APPEALS)
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., J. L. KAPUR,
P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAO and
K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.)
Inams-Abolition of Personal Inams-Constitutional validity
of Enactment-" Estate·· '"Right in an estate", meaning of-Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, z952 (Bom. 42 of z953), ss. 4, 5,
7, z7-Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (Bom. 5 of 1879), s. 3(5)
-Constitution of India, Arts. 31, 3I-A.
The appellants held personal inams which were governed
by Bombay Acts Nos. II and VII of 1863 by virtue of which
they held their lands on payment of land revenue . which was
less than the full assessment. After the coming into force of
the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1952, the appellants
who were affected by it challenged the validity of the Act on
the grounds, inter alia, (1) that the property which had been
dealt with under the Act was not an estate.inasmuch as what
ss. 4 and 5 exting11ished was the right of the inamdar to appropriate to himself the difference between the full assessment and
(;1111;:11d/ian ao
.\'(11 a.1·a10-an
J.la,1!01;da,
v.
State of l''J11:bay
!H4
SUPHK\IE COCRT REPORTS
[1961]
lhc quit rent and this \\;is not an cstat(' \vithin the n~(·aning of
Art. .11-A of the Con<t1tution of India, ancl (2) that no compensation had been provided in the Act for taking away the proputy of the app.,IJants.
Held: (1) that the right of the inamdar to appropriate to
himself lhc difference br·t\\·er·n th1• full a~sessrnent anc: the quit
rent \\'as a right in rcs~iect of land revt"nue and \i,as tlu·refnre a
right in an estate by VJTtJJc of th" <lcfmition in Art. 31-A(2)(b).
Such a right also fell under s. 3(5) ,,f the Bombay Land Rcver.11c Code, 187q, and as snct1 it
\\·a~ :-in f'State unrler Art. 31-A.
Acco1dingly, the Act wh"n it extinguished or modified the rights
of inamdars in inam estates was protcrtcd by Art. 31-A.
.
(2) that sub-s. (5) of s. 17 of the Act under which no
compensation was to he paid for tho loss to the inamclar of what
he used to get h<~r.au$C of the dificrenre hf:t\\·~rn the quit rent
and the full a~scssmi'nt, v.·;.is not in\'alid as 1\rt. 31-A saved the
Act from any attack under Art. 31 which was the only Article
providing for compensation.
CIVIL APPF.I.J.ATE
.JuRISDICTIO:>:
Civil Appeals
I\ os. 155 to 160 of 1956.
Appeals from the judgments an<l orders of the Bombay High Court diited July 6, 1954, in Specin.l Civil
Application" Nos. 393, 395, 409 and 632 of l!l54;
July 19, 1954, in 8pecial Ci\'il Application :No. 1205 of
1954; and ,July 30, I 954, in Special CiYil Application
No. 1309 of 1954.
Purshottam Trikamdas, V. M. J,imayP, E. Udaya.
ralru1m and S. S. Shukla, for the itppellants.
H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-Gmeral of Indio,
N. P. Nathwani, [(, L. Hathi and R.H. Dhebar,
for
the respondents.
1960.
October 3.
The .Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
wa .. choo J.
\VANCHOO J.-These six appeals Pn a <:t>rtificatA
granted by the Bombay High Court rais<' a common
question as to the conRtitutionality of the Bombay
Personal Inams Abolition Act, No. XL!l of 1953,
(hereinafter callee! the Act.) and will be disposed of by
t.his judgment. The appellants hold personal inams
which are con.red by Bombay ActA Nos. IT and VII
of 1863. The Act was attacked on a number of
grounds in the High Court of which only two have
-,
I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
945
been urged before us, namely, (i) that the property
1960
which has been dealt with under the Act is not an Gangadhortao
estate and (ii) that no compensation.has been provided
Narayonrao
in the Act for taking away the property of the appelMajumdar
!ants. The writ petitions were opposed by the State
v.
of Bombay and the main contention on its behalf was State of Bombay
that the Act was protected under Art. 31.A of the
-
Wanchoo ],
Constitution.
Before we deal with the two points raised before us,
we should like briefly to refer to the rights which
holders of personal inams had by virtue of Bomba.y
Acts Nos. II and VII of 1863. Act' No. II extended
to certain parts of the Presidency of Bombay and
dealt with holders of lands in those parts who were
holding lands wholly or partially exempt from the
payment of government land-revenue. The Act provided for the cases of holders of such lands whose
title to exemption had not till then been formally
adjudicated. It laid down that if such holders of
lands consented to submit to the terms and conditions
prescribed in the Act in preference to being obliged to
prove their title to the exemption enjoyed by them,
the Provincial Government would be prepared to
finally authorise and guarantee the continuance, in
perpetuity, of the said land to t.he said holders, their
heirs and assigns upon the said terms and subject to
the said conditions. The main provision of the Act
in this respect was that such holders of land would
.be entitled to keep their lands u1 perpetuity subject
to payment of (i) a fixed annual payment as nazrana
in commutation of all claims of the Crown in respect
pf succession and transfer which shall be calculated
at the rate of one anna for each rupee of assessment
and (ii) a quit-rel)t equal to one-fourth of the assessment. There were other provisions in the Act for
those cases where the holders of such lands were not
prepared to abide by the conditions of the Act and
wanted their claims to be adjudicated ; but we are not
concerned with those 'provisions for present purposes.
Thus the main right which the holders of lands got
by Act II was that they held their lands on payment
of one-fourth of the assessment instead of full
Ganf!adlta1Pt11
/\'ara}"a'uao
Ma111mdar
v.
Stale of llom!.J!1_1
1Va11choo ].
ll16
~l~PHEME COURT REPORTS
[1961]
assessmont plus further one-sixteenth of the a.sseeement; thus they pa.id in all five e.nna.s in the rupee of
the full assessment and retained ele\·en a.nna.s in the
rupee for themselves ..
Act Ko. VII dealt with similar holders of la.nds in
the remaining parts of the fresidency of Bombay,
and me.de similar pro¥isions with this difference tba.t
such holdNs of lands were to pay two e.nne.s for ea.ch
rupl'C of the e.~sessmcnt e.s quit-rent under a. 6. Thus
those who ca.me under Act VII pa.id only two a.nna.s
in the rupee of the assessment and retained fourteen
annas in the rupee for themselves.
\Ve now turn to the pro¥isions of the Act. Hy s. 2(c)
" inamdar " is defined a.a a holder of personal ina.m
and includes any person lawfully holding under or
through him. Section 2(d) defines an "inam village"
or" ioam land" whiles. 2(e) defines" personal ina.m ".
Section 3 provides that the Act will not apply to
certain inams including devasthan inams or inams .
held by religious or charitable institutions.
The
Explanation to the section lays down that by the
term " inams held hy religious or che.rite.ble institutions" will be meant devasthan or dhr:rmadaya iname
granted or recognized by the ruling authority for the
time being for a. religious or charitable institution and
entered e.s such in the alienation register kept under
a. 53 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter called the Code), or in the records kept under
the rules made under the Pensions Act, 1871. Thus
so far a.a religious or charitable institutions were concerned those ine.ms which they held from the very
beginning as devasthan or dharmadaya ine.me and
which were entered in the relevant records were out
of the provisions of the Act. Section 4 extinguishes
a.II persona.I ina.me and eave e.s expressly provided by
or under the provisions of tho Act, a.II rights legally
subsisting on the said date in respect of such persona.I
ins.me were &leo extinguished subject to certain exceptions which a.re, however, not ma.teria.l now. Section
5 provides that all inam ville.gee or ine.m lands a.re
a.nd shall be li~ble to the payment of land-revenue in
accordance with the provisions of Uif tCode or the
•.
..
I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
947
rules made thereunder a.nd the provisions of the Code
a.nd the rules relating to upa.liena.ted lands shall apply
h
d
h
Gangadharrao
to such lands. It fort er provi es t a.t a.n inamda.r
xarayanrao
in respect of the ina.m land in his actual possession or
Majumdar .
in possession of a. person holding from him other than
v.
a.n inferior holder (subject to an exception which we state of Bomb•y
shall mention just now) would be primarily liable to
the State Government for the payment of land-revenue due in respect of such land held by him a.nd shall ·
be entitled to a.II the rights a.nd shall be liable to all
obligations in respect ·of such land as an occupant
under the Code or the rules made thereunder or any
other law for the time being in force.
Thus by s. 5
the holder of a persona.I inam became for all practice.I
purposes an occupant under the Code liable to pay
full land-revenue and the advantage that he ha.d
under Acts II and VII of 1863 of paying only a. part
of the land-revenue and retaining the rest for himself
wa.s ta.ken away. The exception which we have referred to a.hove was where the inferior holder holding
inam land pa.id a.n amount equal to th.e annual assessment to the holder of the persona.I inam, such inferior
holder would be liable to the State <Jovernment and
would become a.n occupant of the land under the
Code. Section 7 then vests certain lands like public
roads, paths and lanes, the bridges, ditches, dikes a.nd
fences, the bed of the sea and harbours, creeks below
high water mark and of rivers, streams, nallas, lakes,
wells a.nd tanks, and all canals, water.courses, a.II
standing and flowing water, all unbuilt village sites,
a.II waste lands and all uncultivated lands (excluding
lands used for building or other non-agricultura.l purposes) in the State Government and extinguishes the
rights of ina.mdar in them. Section 8 <lea.ls with right
to trees a.nd s. 9 with right to mines a.nd mineral products. Section 10 provides for compensation for extinguishment of rights under s. 7 w bile s. 11 gives a
right of a.ppea.l from the order of the Collector under
s. 10. Sections. 12 to 16 <lea.I with procedure.I matters
a.nd s. 17 provides for payment of compensation for
extinction or modification of a.n inamdar's right
which ma.y not be covered by s. 10.
Sub-section (5)
JVanchoo ].
9~8
SUPRE11E COCRT REPORTS
[l!J61]
of s. 17 however says that "nothing in this section
shall entitle any person to compensation on the ground
Gan,adJ.~o 1'Cl? ·
Naoyan•ao
that any inam village or inam land which was wholly
or partially exempt from the payment of land r"veuue
ha8 been undt•r thl· prn,·isions of tbis Act madP- Rubject to tho paymnnt of full a~scssm~nt in accord"nco
with the provi~ions of tho Code". Section 17-A prov ides for the issue of bonds while s. 18 provides for
Stott tJj !Jomha}
H'a1uJ,,1:i ].
the applicatiun of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural I.ands Act, 1948, to any inam village or inam
land or the mutual rights and obligations of au iua.mdar and his tenants. Seetiou 19 provides for ma.king of rules and s. 20 deals with repeals and amendments.
It will be seen from this analysis of the Act that
the ma.in provisions are ss. 4, 5 and 7.
So far as s. 7
is concerned, there is provision for compensation with
respect to lands vested in the State by virtue of that·
.-;cction.
But no compensation is provided for the
rights extinguished by ss. 4 and 5.
As we have seen
.... lre .. dy the ma.in right of au ina.mdar was to hold his
lauds on payment of land revenue which was less
than the full assessment and it is this right which has
been abolished by as. 4 and 5 and the ina.mdar will
now have to pay the full assessment.
No compensation hati been provided for the loss which the iua.mda.r
suffers by ha.l'ing to pay the full assessment.
This brings us to the first contention. On behalf of
the appellants it is urged that what ss. 4 and 5 extinguish is the right of the iuamdar to appropriate to
himself the difference between the full assessment and
the quit-rent, and this is not an estate within the
meauiug of Art. 31-A of tho Constitution. The relevant provisions in Art. 31-A for present purposes are
these:-
" 31-A (I )-N otwithsta.nding anything contained
iu art. 13, no law providing for-
( a) the acquisition by the State of any estate or
of a.uy rights therein or the extinguish ment ur modification of any such rights, or
(b) ........................................................... ..
(c) ............................................................ .
J
!
•••
..
·.
.,
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
949
(d) •.. ·················· .........................•.. ········ ... .
(e) ............................................................. .
shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any of !he
rights conferred by art. 14, art 19 or art. 31;
Provided ..................................................... .
(2) In this article-
(a) the expression• estate' shall, in relation to
any local area, have the same meaning as that expression or its local equivalent has in the existiog law
relating to land tenures in force in that area, and shall
also include any jagir, inam or muafi or other similar
grant and in the ,States of Madras and Kerala any
janmam right;
(b) the expression 'rights' in relation to an
estate shall include any rights vesting in a proprietor,
sub-proprietor, under-proprietor, tenure-holder, raiy at,
under-raiyat or other intermediary and any rights or
privileges in respect of land revenue".
It will be clear from the definition of the word
"estate" in Art. 3l-A(2)(a) that it specifically includes an "inam" within it. As such it would be in our
opinion idle to contend that inams are not estates
within the meaning of the expression " estate " for the
purpose of Art. 31-A. The Act specificall,y deals with
inams and would thus 'be obviously protected under
Art. 31-A from any attack under "Art. 14, Art. 19 or
Art. 31. It is, however, urged that the right of the
inamdar to appropriate to himself that part of full
assessment which was left over after he had paid the
quit-rent to the Government is not a right in an
estate. This contention also has no force.
Inams
being estates, the right of the inamdar to retain part
of the full assessment over and above the quit-rent
payable to the Government arises because he holds
the inam-estate. The right therefore can be nothing
more than a right in an estate. Besides the definition
of the expression "rights" in Art. 31-A(2)(b) makes
the position clear beyond all doubt, for it provides
that the rights in relation to an estate would include
any rights or privileges in respect of land revenue.
121
Gangadharrao
Narayanrao
Majumdar
v.
State of Bombay
IFanchoo }'.
Gangadhatrao
1'.'arayantal)
,\1a;umda,
v.
Slate of Bombay
ivanchoo ].
950
SVPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961]
Even if it were possible to Ray that the right of the
inamdar to appropriate to himself the difference betwpcn the full a.sseHsment, and the quit-rent wa.s not a.
right in a.n estate aR Ruch, it would become a right in
an estate by virtue of thiR inclusive definition for the
ina.mdar's right could only be a right or privilege in
respect of land-revenue.
Besides, it is clear that the
right in question falls under s. 3(5) of the Code and a.s
such also it is an estate nnder Art .. 31-A. The contention of the a.ppella.nts therefore that in a.ms dealt with
by the Act a.re not covered by the cxpreBBion "estate"
in Art. 31-A fails. Their further contention that their
right to retain the difference between full asseBSment
a.nd qnit-rent is not a right in a.n estate also fails.
The Act therefore when it extinguishes or modifies
the rights of ina.mda.rs in the ina.m estates is clearly
protected by Art. 31-A.
The next contention is that the Act does not provide
for compensation a.nd is therefore ultra vires in view
of Art. 31.
We find, however, that the Act ha.s provided for compensation under R. 10 so fa.r as that pa.rt
of ina.m lands which a.re vested in the State by s. ~
a.re concerned. Furthers. 17 provides for compensation in a. possible case where a.nytbing ha.a been left
out by s. 7 a.nd the ina.mda.r is entitled to compensation for it. It is true that by snb.s. (5) of s. 17 no
compensation is to be pa.id for the Joss to the ina.mda.r
of w ha.t he used to get because of the difference between the quit-rent and the full assessment. It is however clear that Art. 31-A saves tho Act from a.ny
a.tta.ck under Art. 31 which is the only Article providing for compensation. In this view of the matter the
constitutionality of the Act cannot be assailed on the
ground that it provides no compensation for extinction of certain rights.
There is no force in these a.ppea.ls a.nd they a.re
h(•reby dismissed with costs. One set only of hearing
costs.
Appeal.! dismissed.
"