PRAHLAD K. MODI AND ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT

It is neatly contended by Shri P.H. Parekh, learned counsel for the appellant after a thorough preparation that s.5 of the Act gives right to the lnamdar of ret•jning the land subject to the payment of land revenue in accordance with the provisions of the Code and the Rules made there under. The land is being used for building purposes and also non-agricul tural purposes. Since s.7 itself made an exception to the lands used for D building or non-agricultural purposes, it must be read in conjunction with s.5 and that, therefore, 2 acres 15 gunthas of land in Survey Nos. 6 and 9 shall be deemed to be the land which had not been vested in the State by operation of ss.4 and 7 of the Act. The High Court was, therefore, not right in its conclusion that the aforesaid 2 acres 15 gunthas stood vested in the State by proper reading of the provisions of the Act. We find no force in the contention. E F It is seen that s.4 makes clear that notwithstanding anything con tained in any usage, settlement, grant, sanad or order or a decree or order of a Court or any law for the time being in force, with effect from and on the appointed date, all personal inams shall be deemed to have been extinguished. As its part, and composit scheme of the Act, s. 7 expressly enumerates the properties and appurtentant lands held by the inamdar shall stand vested in the State. The pre-existing right, title and interest held by the inamdar shall be deemed to have been extinguished and the property shall belong to State though it was held by the Inamdar prior to the G appointed date. It shall be lawful to the Collector to take possession of the land subject to the right of the third party enumerated in s.7. Explanation makes clear the meaning of the uncultivated land stating that if the land had not been used for a continuous period of three years immediately before the appointed date, it is an uncultivated land. Past tense "uncul- tivated" would clearly indicate that the land which is used for agricultural H PRAHLAD K. MODI v. STATE OF GUJ. 471 purpose alone was saved and the Inamdar was allowed to retain its pas- A session. In all other lands, the pre-existing right, title and interest of the Inamdar has been extinguished and vested in the State. The lands used for building and non-agricultural purpose alone were saved from the operation of s. 7. The explanation engrafted in s. 7 ..... that the lands used for over three years prior to the appointed date for building or non-agricultural B purposes alone are saved from the operation of s.7. In other words, the land must be actually used for building purposes or non-agricultural pur pose. _That land alone stood excluded from vesting. All other uncultivated fand or waste land shall vest in the State and the pre-existing right, title and interest of the Inamdar stood extinguished from the appointed date. The possibility of its future use for building or non-agricultural purpose is C not a relevant consideration to exclude such land from operation of s.7. The operation of s. 7 is independent of and not subsidiary to s.5 nor an exception to s.5. Section 5 deals only with cultivated land. Shri P.H. Parekh sought reliance on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Ambabhai Janhavibai v. State of Maharashtra, (1967) BLR 291. In view of the above D construction, the Bombay High Court was not right in its conclusion that s.7 is to be read with s.5 and the lands which are capable of being used in futqre should be uncultivated land to which the Inamdar is entitled to the possession is clearly illegal. In that view, we find no ground warranting interference. The appeals are dismissed. No costs. E T.N.A. Appeals dismissed.