Holding

The lands are "uncultivated land" within the meaning of Section 6 of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949 and therefore vest in the State.

Summary

The Supreme Court considered an appeal by tenants of lands in a Taluqdari estate who argued that the lands, though cultivable, should not be deemed “uncultivated” under the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949 because they had been cultivated earlier. Section 6 of the Act, with its explanation, defines uncultivated land as land not cultivated for a continuous period of three years immediately before the Act’s commencement. The Court found that the lands had indeed remained uncultivated for the requisite three‑year period, and that the capability of cultivation does not defeat the definition. Consequently, the lands fell within the meaning of “uncultivated land” and vested in the State. The Court rejected the reliance on State of Gujarat v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether lands not cultivated for a continuous period of three years before the commencement of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949 qualify as "uncultivated land" under Section 6.
Whether such lands vest in the State under the same provision.
Whether the precedent State of Gujarat v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (1980) 1 SCR 233 is applicable to the present facts.

Legislation cited

Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949s. 6

Subjects

Taluqdari estateuncultivated landland vestingBombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition ActSection 6tenancyland reformSupreme Court

Judgment

MANGAL SINHJI DOLAT SINHJI ETC. A
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT

OCTOBER 11, 1991

(M.H. KANIA AND G.N. RAY, JJ.) B
Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949:

Section 6 --Explanation-Expression "Uncultivated land"--Scope
~
of-Land capable of cultivation but not cultivated co11tinuously for 3 years
prior to the enforcement of the Act-Held "uncultivated land" and vested in
c
the State.
0
The appellants were tenants of certain lands which formed part of a
Taluqdari Estate. These lands though cultivable were not cultivated for a
continuous period of 3 years prior to the coming into force of the Bombay
Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949•.
D

In the tenant's appeal to this Court, on the question whether these
... _...
lands were uncultivated '1ands within the meaning of Section 6 of the 1949
Act and thus became vested in the State:

Dismissing the appeals, this Court,
E

HELD: 1. The lands in question are clearly covered by the definition
of the expression "uncultivated land" as set out in the Explanation to
Section 6 of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949. (500-F].
-y
1.1 Even according to the appellants themselves, the lands were F
under cultivation for some time prior to the coming into force of the said
Act and hence it could not be said that they were uncultivable lands. They
were in fact lands which were capable of cultivation and as a matter of fact
had been subjected to cultivation for some-time but were not cultivated for
continuous period of three years prior to the coming into force of the Act. G
Accordingly the lands must be regarded as "uncultivated lands" for the
..,,, purposes of Section 6 of the Act and must be deemed to be vested in the
State Government. [500 E·F, 499-C).

State of Gujarat v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, (1980) 1 SCR 233, held
inapplicable. H
497
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991) SUPP. 1 S. C.R.

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1227 to
U30of1979.

From the Judgment and Order dated 24.11.1978 of the Gujarat High
Court in Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 54, 52, 53, 55 of 1973.

B. Datta, J.P. Pathak and P.H. Parekh for the Appellants.
B
R.N. Sachthey, Bimal Roy Jad and Anip Sachthey for the Respon-
dent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by )>--

c KANIA, J. These are the appeals by special leave from a common
ju<Wnent of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court disposing of the
Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 52 to 55 of 1973 and also Letters Patent Ap-
peal No. 50 of 1973. It is a common ground that the appellants are the
tenants of certain lands which form part of the estate or Wanta of a Taluq-
dar. The question is whether the provisions of Section 6 of the Bombay
D Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949, are applicable to the lands in ques-
tion, and whether under the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act,
1949, which came into effect from 15th August, 1950, the said lands became
vested in the State and all rights in the said land held by the Taluqdar
)- ...
became the property of the Government. Under the provisions of Section 6
of the said Act, inter alia, all uncultivated lands excluding the land used for
E building and other non-agricultural purposes, vest in the State. Section 6 of
the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949, runs as follows: -
"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, y-
F nallas, 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 lan_ds used
for building or other non-agricultural purposes), which are not
situate within the limits of the wantas as belonging to a taluq-
dar "in a taluqdari estate shall except in so far as any rights of
any person other than the taluqdar may be established in and
G over the same and except as may otherwise be provided by any
law for the time being in force, vest in and shall be deemed to
be, with all rights in or over the same or appertaining thereto, r -·
~
the property of the Government and all rights held by a taluq-
dar in such property shall be deemed to have been extin-
guished and it shall be lawful for the Collector, subject to the
H
MANGAJL v. SfATE [KANIA, J.] 499

general or special orders of the Commissioner, to dispose A
them of as he deems fit, subject always to the rights of way and
of other rights of the public or of individuals legally subsisting.
Explanation: For the purposes of this section, land shall be
deemed to be uncultivated, if it has not been cultivated for a
continuous period of three years immediately before the date
on which this Act comes into force." B
The question is whether for the purposes of this section the lands
in question were uncultivated lands. It is an admitted position that the
lands were leased by the Taluqdar to the tenants. There is also a clear
and categorical'1inding of facts that these lands had remained uncultivated
for a period of 3 years immediately before the said Act came into force. C
Prima f acie it would appear that in view of the said explanation to section
6 the lands must be regarded as uncultivated lands for the purposes of
section 6 of the said Act and must be deemed to be vested in Government.
Learned Counsel for the appellants, however, contended that as the lands
had been put to cultivation earlier for some time even though not cul-
tivated for continuous three years prior to vesting they cannot be regarded D
as uncultivated lands. According to learned Counsel, if the land is capable
of being cultivated, it cannot be treated as uncultivated land within the
meaning of section 6. He relied on a decision of this Court in State ?f
Gujarat v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal reported in [1980] 1 SCR page 233.
Our attention has been drawn to the observation made at page 239 of the
said report. After setting out the. provision of Section 6 it has been ob- E
served, as follows:
' "On a fair reading of the section, it would be evident that the
vesting is in respect of properties which could be put to public
use. It leaves the private properties of the taluqdar untouched.
The legislative intent is manifested by clear enumeration of
certain specific properties not situate within the wantas of a F
taluqdar. It begins by specifying 'All public roads, lanes, paths,
bridges etc.' and ends up with 'all village site lands, all waste
lands and all uncultivated lands', and these being public
properties situate in a taluqdar's estate must necessarily vest in
the Government because they are meant for public use. In
spite of vesting of such property in the Government, however, G
the conferral of the rights of an occupant on a taluqdar under
section 5(1)(b) in respect of the lands in his actual possession,
is saved.

Pausing there, it is fair to observe that the words in parenthesis
'excluding lands used for building or other non-agricultural H
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991) SUPP. 1 S. C.R.

A purposes', exemplify the intention of the legislature not to ·
deprive a taluqdar of such land, even though such property is
uncultivated land, due to its inherent character as well as by
reason of the Explanation.

It is, therefore, evident that the determination of the question
whether a particular category of property belonging to a taluqdar
B in a taluqdari estate is vested in the Government or not, and the
determination of the question whether the rights held by a taluq-
dar in such property shall be deemed to have been extinguished
or not, will depend upon the category of that property. The ex-
pression 'all waste lands' has been joined by conjunctive 'and' with
the expression 'all uncultivated lands'. They, therefore, indicate
c two distinct types of land. If the legislature had intended that the
aforesaid expression should indicate one class of lands, the ex-
pression rather would have been 'all waste and uncultivated lands'
as againsf the expression 'all waste lands and all uncultivated
lands'. Here we have, therefore, two distinct categories of proper-
ties viz. (1) waste lands, and (2) uncultivated lands. The conten-
D tion that the grass-lands on hilly tracts which are incapable of
cultivation were 'waste lands' or 'uncultivated lands' within the
meaning of section 6 cannot be accepted." ·
The said decision of this Court and the observation relied on by the
learned Counsel do not come in the aid of the contention made by the
E learned Counsel for the appellants. Even according to the appellants them-
selves, the lands were under cultivation for some time prior to the coming
into force of the said Act and hence, it could not be said that they were
uncultivable lands. They were in fact, lands which were capable of cultiva-
tion and as a matter of fact subjected to cultivation for some time but,
which as found by th,e High Court were not cultivated for continuous
F period of three years prior to the coming into force of the said Act. In
these circumstances, the said lands are clearly covered by the· defmition
of the expression "uncultivated land" as set out in the Explanation to sec-
tion 6. As the said lands were uncultivated lands within the meaning of
section 6, they must be deemed to have been vested in the Government
and the contention of the appellants to the contrary must be rejected.

G In the result, there is no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed.
There will, however, be no order as to costs.

T.N.A Appeals dismissed.