1968 (4) TMI 94 - SC - Indian Laws

Court affirms compensation denial, modifies solatium, orders further inquiry on riverbed areas.

State of Gujarat and Ors. Versus Vakhtsinghji Sursinghji Vaghela and Ors.

The court upheld the rejection of compensation for the difference between Jama and full assessment, as the taluqdars had no legal right to pay ... - Issues:1. Difference in Jama and full assessment2. Solatium of 15% on the market value3. Irrigational bunds, tanks, and wells4. River and river beds5. Compensation for unbuilt village sites, trees, sim road, and non-irrigational tanks and wells6. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the ConstitutionAnalysis:1. Difference in Jama and Full Assessment:The taluqdars claimed compensation for the loss of the benefit of the difference between the jama (60% of the total assessment) and the full assessment after the expiry of their settlements. The court found that the taluqdars had no legal right to pay the concessional jama beyond the current settlements. Section 5(1)(a) of the Abolition Act, which imposed full assessment after the expiry of the current settlements, did not extinguish or modify any vested right of the taluqdars. The court cited the case of Rao Bahadur Kunwar Lal Singh v. The Central Provinces and Berar, concluding that the increase in land revenue did not involve any transference to the Government of any right in or over any immovable property. Consequently, the claim for compensation for the difference between the jama and the full assessment was rightly rejected by the Collector, the Revenue Tribunal, and the High Court.2. Solatium of 15% on the Market Value:The taluqdars claimed a solatium of 15% on the market value awarded under section 7 of the Abolition Act. The Collector and the Revenue Tribunal rejected this claim, but the High Court partially allowed it, directing the addition of 15% to the market value awarded under section 7(1)(b)(iii). The court clarified that under section 7(1)(b) of the Abolition Act read with section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, the taluqdars were entitled to receive as compensation the market value of all rights in any property extinguished under section 6 and, in addition, a sum of 15% on such market value. This right is subject to the conditions and exceptions enumerated in sub-clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of section 7(1)(b). The court modified the High Court's direction accordingly.3. Irrigational Bunds, Tanks, and Wells:The Collector awarded compensation based on Himayat and water rates of assessment, which was confirmed by the Revenue Tribunal. The High Court set aside this award and directed the Collector to award compensation based on twenty-five times the annual profits derivable from the properties. The court held that the duty of the Collector was to award the 'market value,' which is generally ascertained by capitalizing the annual income expected from the land. The High Court rightly adopted the yield basis of valuation, rejecting the Himayat assessment and water rates as they did not give the correct yield. The High Court's direction for further inquiries into this claim was upheld.4. River and River Beds:The Collector and the Tribunal rejected the claim for compensation for river and river beds, but the High Court allowed it and directed further inquiries. The court noted that the taluqdars had no property in running water and that the submerged river beds were of no value to them. However, the taluqdars confined their claim to Bhathas formed in the rivers and other portions of the river beds where crops could be raised during some parts of the year. The court set aside the High Court's directions and directed the Special Deputy Collector to inquire into this limited claim for compensation.5. Compensation for Unbuilt Village Sites, Trees, Sim Road, and Non-Irrigational Tanks and Wells:The court found no error of principle in the High Court's award of compensation under these heads and saw no ground for interference in respect of these claims.6. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution:The court rejected the contention that section 12 of the Abolition Act made the decision of the Tribunal final and conclusive, precluding the High Court's jurisdiction. It was held that Article 227 of the Constitution gives the High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its jurisdiction. This supervisory jurisdiction includes keeping subordinate tribunals within their authority and ensuring they obey the law. The High Court had jurisdiction to revise the Tribunal's decision where it misconceived its duties under sections 7 and 14 of the Act. The High Court's exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction in revising the Tribunal's decision regarding solatium and irrigation bunds, tanks, and wells was found to be within its authority.Conclusion:The court modified the High Court's decision regarding the solatium of 15% on the market value and directed the Special Deputy Collector to inquire into the claim for compensation for Bhathas and other portions of the river beds where crops could be raised. Subject to these modifications, the appeals were dismissed, and the High Court's decision in all other respects was confirmed. No order as to costs was made.