1963 (4) TMI 65 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the villages held by the appellant constitute an estate within the meaning of s. 2 (b) of the Bombay Act 47 of 1951? If the villages constitute an estate, whether the exemption from payment of land revenue granted under the indenture is saved by sub-s. (3) of s. 3? Held that - Appeal dismissed. By express provision the estate-holder is excluded from the benefit of sub-s. (3). The intention of the Legislature is clear it is to withdraw the exemption in favour of the estate-holder from payment of land revenue if such right was granted under a cowl, That withdrawal is not to affect the rights of per-sons holding land in an estate under a special contract, or grant which was made or recognized by the terms of the cowl even if the right was to hold the land exempt from the payment of land revenue. The futility of the argument that the expression ,person when it first occurs in sub-s. (3) includes the estate-holder, becomes obvious if the clause is read after substituting the expression estate-holder for Person .

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the villages held by the appellant constitute an estate within the meaning of s. 2(b) of the Bombay Act 47 of 1951.
2. If the villages constitute an estate, whether the exemption from payment of land revenue granted under the indenture is saved by sub-s. (3) of s. 3.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the villages held by the appellant constitute an estate within the meaning of s. 2(b) of the Bombay Act 47 of 1951:

The court examined the indenture dated September 22, 1847, which granted the villages to Banajee. The indenture was analyzed to determine whether it constituted a lease, farm, or agreement as defined under s. 2(d) of the Act. The court concluded that the indenture did not constitute a lease because it conferred rights of ownership in land rather than merely a right to enjoy land. Additionally, the indenture was not considered a farm because it did not involve the appellant acting as an agent to recover revenue for the East India Company. Instead, the villages were held under an agreement with the East India Company, as the indenture imposed certain covenants and obligations on the grantee, such as respecting the rights of land occupants, maintaining dewasthans, dharmadawas, and allowances to Pals, and paying an annual rent of Re. 1/- if demanded. Therefore, the villages were held under an agreement from the State Government, fulfilling the conditions prescribed under the Act.

2. If the villages constitute an estate, whether the exemption from payment of land revenue granted under the indenture is saved by sub-s. (3) of s. 3:

The court examined whether the exemption from payment of land revenue granted under the indenture was saved by sub-s. (3) of s. 3 of the Act. Sub-s. (1) of s. 3 imposes liability to pay land revenue on all lands in an estate, notwithstanding any previous exemption. However, sub-s. (3) provides an exception, stating that nothing in sub-s. (1) shall affect the right of any person to hold land in an estate exempt from payment of land revenue under a special contract or grant recognized by the terms of the cowl, provided the person is not the estate-holder. The court concluded that the exemption granted to the grantee (estate-holder) under the cowl was extinguished by sub-s. (1) of s. 3, and sub-s. (3) did not save the grantee's exemption. The exemption only protected the rights of persons other than the estate-holder who held land in the estate under a special contract or grant.

Conclusion:

The court held that the villages held by the appellant constituted an estate within the meaning of s. 2(b) of the Bombay Act 47 of 1951, as they were held under an agreement from the State Government. However, the exemption from payment of land revenue granted under the indenture was not saved by sub-s. (3) of s. 3, as it did not apply to the estate-holder. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

← Previous Next →