Temporary cultivation permission does not create perpetual property rights; later policy can lawfully supersede the earlier arrangement.

Government ownership of the lands meant the State could grant only a lease or temporary permission to cultivate, subject to changing public policy. The 1931 resolution did not confer any vested, indefeasible, or perpetual property right on adjoining owners; at most it reflected a seasonal arrangement dependent on water recession. The later 1953 memorandum lawfully superseded that policy, and an administrative permission could not be converted into a permanent estate. Section 68 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code was held not to turn the limited cultivation permission into immovable property. The claim to a perpetual right therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Government resolution of 1931 created an enforceable right to cultivate the lands in perpetuity in favour of the adjoining owners, and whether the later governmental policy could validly supersede that arrangement.

Analysis: The lands belonged to the Government, which was competent to dispose of them by lease or permission to cultivate according to changing public policy. The 1931 resolution did not create any vested or indefeasible property right; at most it indicated a seasonal and precarious arrangement dependent on recession of water. The later 1953 memorandum lawfully superseded the earlier policy, and a mere administrative or policy decision could not be transformed into a permanent estate or perpetual tenure. Section 68 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code did not convert the limited permission to cultivate into a permanent right in immovable property.

Conclusion: The claim of a perpetual right under the 1931 resolution failed, and the High Court was wrong in treating it as creating a property right.

---