Dharma Bal Patil vs Balamiya Hajimiya

N.G. Chandavarkar, J.—The facts are that an occupancy was first declared forfeited u/s 56 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, and thereafter it was disposed of by the Collector as provided for by Nos. 32 and 62 of the Rules made u/s 214 of that Code. It was disposed of by giving it into the occupation of the defendant, who signed a "Kabulayat," in Form B appended to the Rules. Some years after that, the Collector ordered the same occupancy to be taken from the defendant and given to the plaintiff, who had been the occupant before the forfeiture. The only question before us is, whether the Collector had power to do this. His proceedings are supported in argument by reliance on Rule No. 63. Therefore, the question is whether that rule empowers a Collector to do such a thing. Agreeing with the first Court and differing from the appeal Court we hold that it does not. Rule 63 empowers a Collector to restore a forfeited occupancy to the original occupant. But when a forfeited occupancy has been disposed of by grant to a new occupant, it ceases to be a forfeited occupancy and Rule 63 no longer has any application. That rule states the law or a part of the law applicable to lands which are forfeited occupancies; not the law applicable to those lands which having once been forfeited occupancies have, by disposal according to the Rules, become something different.

We allow this appeal, reverse the decree of the lower appellate Court, and restore that of the Court of first instance, with costs both of this appeal and of the appeal to the lower appellate Court on the respondent.