Tenant protection under a confirmed grant prevails over personal-cultivation allotment when eviction is barred by the saving provision.

A government-confirmed grant that includes a condition protecting cultivators from eviction creates an enforceable right or privilege preserved by the Act's saving provision. Section 18 was construed broadly to protect existing rights arising from a grant, so tenants could rely on the no-eviction condition against any attempt to displace them. A personal-cultivation allotment under Chapter IV could not be made where its effect would be to defeat that protected contractual restraint, because the Mamlatdar lacked power to pass an order abridging rights preserved by the statute. The ratio is that preserved grant-based tenant protection prevails over inconsistent allotment proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the tenants could rely on the conditions attached to the government's confirmation of the grant so as to prevent eviction under the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, 1951. (ii) Whether an application by the Girasdar for allotment of land for personal cultivation under the Act was maintainable when the grant itself carried a condition against evicting the tenants.

Issue (i): Whether the tenants could rely on the conditions attached to the government's confirmation of the grant so as to prevent eviction under the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, 1951.

Analysis: The grant was confirmed by the Government subject to conditions accepted by the grantee, including the condition that no cultivator would be evicted. The Act, by its overriding provision, operated subject to existing rights and privileges arising out of any contract, grant, decree, order or otherwise. Section 18 preserved tenant rights arising out of a grant and was wide enough to include a governmental grant confirming the appellant's title. The condition against eviction was therefore enforceable by the tenants as a right or privilege arising out of the grant.

Conclusion: The tenants were entitled to rely on the condition against eviction, and that condition remained operative under Section 18.

Issue (ii): Whether an application by the Girasdar for allotment of land for personal cultivation under the Act was maintainable when the grant itself carried a condition against evicting the tenants.

Analysis: Chapter IV enabled a Girasdar to seek allotment for personal cultivation, but an order under that Chapter would have the effect of enabling eviction of the tenants from the allotted land. Since Section 18 preserved the tenants' existing rights and privileges, no order under Chapter IV could limit or abridge the contractual restraint against eviction. The Mamlatdar therefore had no power to pass an order whose effect would be to defeat the tenants' protected rights.

Conclusion: The application under Section 19 was not maintainable and was rightly dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme could not be used to override the preserved tenant protection arising from the confirmed grant, and the dismissal of the application was in law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a grant confirmed by the Government carries a condition protecting tenants from eviction, the tenants may enforce that condition under the Act's saving provision, and a personal-cultivation allotment cannot be ordered if it would abridge those protected rights.

---