Skip to content


Shrikant Hanmantrao Rathi and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 187 of 1989
Judge
Reported inJT1994(5)SC91; 1995Supp(2)SCC747
ActsBombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1952 - Section 15; Land Revenue Code - Section 37(2)
AppellantShrikant Hanmantrao Rathi and anr.
RespondentState of Maharashtra
Excerpt:
.....inams abolition act, 1952. the appellant claimed compensation which was granted in 1960. since the compensation awarded was meagre the appellant was paid rehabilitation grant as per government's general policy. against quantum of compensation the appellant filed appeal before the revenue tribunal and later on writ petition in the high court. the appellant thereafter filed an application under section 37(2) of the land revenue code. it was allowed and the suit was dismissed......grant as per government's general policy. against quantum of compensation the appellant filed appeal before the revenue tribunal and later on writ petition in the high court. he did not succeed and the proceedings became final. the appellant thereafter filed an application under section 37(2) of the land revenue code. in these proceedings some inquiry appears to have been made presumably in favour of the appellant. on its strength he filed the suit challenging vesting of inam land in the state. the suit was decreed and the order of collector was declared to be null and void. against this decree the state filed appeal in the high court. it was allowed and the suit was dismissed. it is against this order that the appellant has come to this court.2. section 15 of the inams.....
Judgment:

R.M. Sahai and; A.S. Anand, JJ.

1. The proprietary interest of the appellant vested in the State in consequence of Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1952. The appellant claimed compensation which was granted in 1960. Since the compensation awarded was meagre the appellant was paid rehabilitation grant as per Government's general policy. Against quantum of compensation the appellant filed appeal before the Revenue Tribunal and later on writ petition in the High Court. He did not succeed and the proceedings became final. The appellant thereafter filed an application under Section 37(2) of the Land Revenue Code. In these proceedings some inquiry appears to have been made presumably in favour of the appellant. On its strength he filed the suit challenging vesting of Inam land in the State. The suit was decreed and the order of Collector was declared to be null and void. Against this decree the State filed appeal in the High Court. It was allowed and the suit was dismissed. It is against this order that the appellant has come to this Court.

2. Section 15 of the Inams Abolition Act provided that the award made by the Collector subject to an appeal to the Tribunal was final and conclusive and was not liable to be questioned in any suit or proceedings in any court. Effect of payment of compensation and making of the award was that the vesting of appellant's interest in State became final. Section 37(2) of the Land Revenue Code entitled a person claiming any right to approach the Collector who after making inquiry could pass an order. The appellant took recourse to this remedy after his claim for compensation had been finally adjudicated upon. Since he was left with no right, and the proceeding had become final, the application under Section 37(2) was not maintainable. The High Court was right in coming to conclusion that any further proceeding could not be taken by the appellant which could result in destroying the finality arrived at by the award given by the Collector.

3. In the circumstances, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //