AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1974 (4) TMI 111
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the order of Government dated July 17, 1968. Although the term of the lease, namely, five years, has by now expired, still the finding of the High Court is sure to injure the claims of the petitioner society in future and so we proceed to consider the subject-matter on the merits. 2. Considerable lands had been acquired in the last century in the village of Gudas in Belgaum District by the Government of Bombay on the score that they were likely to be submerged by the construction of a weir on the river Ghataprabha. However, during summer when the storage of water would shrink, the lands on the contours would be exposed for a whole season and could be put to agricultural use. Therefore, the Government of Bombay resolved by Ex. A of 189....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng of the settlement rates, either under Section 44 of the Irrigation Act or under Section 55 of the Land Revenue Code. The lands previously mentioned for such cultivation should be treated in the same way after that termination of the period of the current auction sales. BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL. 4. As years passed, Government changed its policy and by a circular dated December 19, 1953, a new decision was reached and communicated to the concerned officers. Since the appellant rests its claim on, the strength of this circular memorandum, it is appropriate to set it out in full here. GOVERNMENT CIRCULAR MEMORANDUM; In supersession of all orders issued so far in connection with the disposal of Galper lands in cha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ard class people. (2) Co-operative Societies of local landless backward and other people mixed. (3) Co-operative Societies of other local landless people. (4) Local landless backward class people. (5) Local landless people of other communities. (6) Outside landless people. (7) Local landholders. Note : 1. Allotment to category 4, 5, 6 or 7 should be made after referring the matter to Govt. * * * * * 5. This decision of Government made in 1953 was reiterated in 1954 and 1956, apparently because Government must have noticed lapses in adherence to this important decision by the implementing officers. 6. It is apparent that while the decision of 1931 refers specifical....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been passed in supersession of Ex. D of 1931. 8. The sole point that falls for decision is whether the High Court is right in holding that the Government resolution of 1931 confers on the writ petitioners (respondents 4 and 5 herein) a right "to cultivate the lands in perpetuity conditionally on the payment of the amounts due on account of the land revenue for the same and on the fulfilment of the other terms incorporated in Ex. D". Certainly, if an indefeasible right in property has been vested in the petitioners, as the High Court thinks, there may be something to be said in favour of its ultimate finding, but we have no doubt whatever that the land belonged to Government, that it was free to give leases or rights to cultivate to whom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de pressed into inapt service by the contesting respondents cannot by statutory operation transform an ephemeral permission to cultivate government land into a permanent estate in it. For we cannot predicate a tenure, much less an unlimited tenures here, as contemplated in Section 68. It is a curious social sidelight of this erroneous construction that even if tank beds and reservoirs got silted up by ploughing up the top soil the State will be helpless to prevent it even though the area is part of the irrigation project. 10. The village of Gudas, in which the property is situate, eventually became a part of the State of Karnataka on the Re-organisation of States on November 1, 1956. It was thereafter that on August 24, 1967 the appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o time in these resolutions. Since respondents 4 and 5 could not found a claim for a grant of lease or a right in property based on Ex. D, the allowance of the Writ petition by the High Court was clearly wrong. Nor are we disposed to think that we should decide the rights of the appellant before us, and in any case the period of the lease granted in favour of the appellant society has expired. 12. There was some dispute raised at the Bar as to whether the appellant society really consisted of landless labourers or backward class members. We are not concerned to adjudicate on that issue here. We set aside the judgment of the High Court and leave the matter of the grant of the lease of the lands in question to in the appellant, Government ....