A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This Supreme Court judgment in Bhagwantrao v. Vishwasrao and Another [1960 (2) SCR 710] addresses the legal character and resumption rights pertaining to “patelki huq inam” lands situated in the jagir village of Nawabag, Berar. The central issue was whether such inam lands constituted grants of land to the patelki family subject to service or were emoluments granted specifically for active performance of patel duties. The Court upheld the power of the Government to resume such lands and to regrant them exclusively to the officiating patel. The Court emphasized that the nature of “patelki inam” lands was rooted in emoluments for office and not joint family property subject to partition. The case draws a clear distinction between hereditary land rights and service-tenure-based grants, anchoring its decision in the Patels and Patwaris Law, 1900, the Berar Land Revenue Code, 1928, and the Inam Rules, 1859. The ruling extinguished claims based on partition or adverse possession against the Government and reaffirmed administrative discretion in such service-tenure-based land matters.

Keywords: Patelki Inam, Service Grant, Resumption, Revenue Code, Inam Rules, Emoluments, Berar, Rotation of Office, Government Regrant, Land Tenure.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title
Bhagwantrao Shivaji Patel v. Vishwasrao Patel and State of Bombay

ii) Case Number
Civil Appeal No. 208 of 1955

iii) Judgement Date
12 January 1960

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum
S.K. Das, J. and A.K. Sarkar, J.

vi) Author
Justice S.K. Das

vii) Citation
(1960) 2 SCR 710

viii) Legal Provisions Involved

• Patels and Patwaris Law, 1900

• Berar Land Revenue Code, 1928 (Section 190)

• Inam Rules, 1859

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any)
None

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects
Land Tenure Law, Administrative Law, Constitutional Law (Property Rights), Revenue Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The judgment emerges from an appeal concerning the proprietary and administrative rights over “patelki inam” lands—service-based land grants provided historically as compensation for patel services in Nawabag village, Berar. This territory, once under the dominion of the Nizam of Hyderabad and later under British administration following the cession of Berar in 1853, had a specific socio-administrative structure where village offices like patel and patwari were remunerated through inam lands. After independence and integration of the territory into Indian administrative law, a legal question arose—whether such inam lands, historically enjoyed by family descendants of original officeholders, could be resumed by the State and regranted solely to the active office bearer. The resolution of this issue required navigating a matrix of colonial rules (Inam Rules, 1859), princely protocols, and modern statutes like the Patels and Patwaris Law, 1900 and the Berar Land Revenue Code, 1928.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant, Bhagwantrao Shivaji Patel, claimed possession of certain lands in Nawabag village as part of a family partition from his cousin Vishwasrao, a descendant of the patel lineage. The lands in question were originally granted as “patelki huq inam”—a form of service inam allocated to the village patel for performing administrative duties. Four families, including the appellant’s, had historically rotated in holding the office. Despite never having served as patel, Bhagwantrao received a share of the inam lands through family partition. In 1935, during revenue record preparations, authorities held that only the active patel was entitled to the land’s emoluments. The Deputy Commissioner ordered resumption of Bhagwantrao’s land and regrant to Vishwasrao, the current officiating patel. Higher revenue authorities and the Financial Commissioner affirmed this. Bhagwantrao challenged the orders in civil court, which eventually led to a Supreme Court appeal after the Nagpur High Court dismissed his claim.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the “patelki inam” lands were service tenure lands granted as remuneration for office or hereditary lands owned by the family.
ii) Whether Government had authority under statutory provisions to resume such lands from non-service-holding family members.
iii) Whether the partition of lands among family members conferred private title overriding service tenure character.
iv) Whether adverse possession could be claimed against Government in relation to such inam lands.

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the patelki inam lands had transformed into joint family property over time. The lands were enjoyed by patel families in rotation for generations and were subject to partition. The petitioner, having acquired possession through a lawful family partition in 1923, claimed absolute title irrespective of whether he had performed patel duties. It was also argued that the original grant was made by the jagirdar and not the sovereign, thereby placing it outside the purview of Inam Rules and Berar Land Revenue Code. The petitioner emphasized the hereditary aspect, invoking Rule VI(2) of the Inam Rules, 1859 to argue that hereditary service inams should be allowed to continue within the family even when the holder is not officiating. Furthermore, the appellant claimed that the land had lost its service tenure character upon resumption in 1904-05, especially in regard to plots 2/1A and 9/1A, which were allegedly regranted to jagirdars and later recovered by the appellant through civil decrees. Lastly, adverse possession for over 12 years was pleaded.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that the nature of the patelki inam lands had always been one of service tenure, as explicitly recorded in multiple historical documents, including the 1771 kararnama, 1866 Inam entry, and official resumption records. The respondents emphasized that the Government retained the right to resume lands granted as emoluments for a public office if the incumbent failed to perform duties. The patel office, although hereditary in rotation, did not confer private proprietary rights in the inam lands. The 1922 Government order clearly stated that such lands would be recorded in the name of the officiating patel only. Under Section 190 of the Berar Land Revenue Code, any deviation from service conditions warranted resumption. They also pointed out that alienations or partitions not recognized by revenue authorities could not override statutory provisions and governmental control. Lastly, they refuted the claim of adverse possession, asserting that no possession against the Government could be adverse when the title remained in the sovereign as part of a service grant.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Inam Rules, 1859

• Rule II: Service grants could not be divided among family members by Government.

• Rule VI(2): Discusses inams granted in lieu of service where service is discontinued.

• Rule XIV: Prohibits alienation of service grants.

ii) Patels and Patwaris Law, 1900

• Section 3: Provides for rotation among multiple patels.

• Section 9: Emoluments belong only to the serving patel.

• Section 20: Bars civil courts from entertaining claims to emoluments.

iii) Berar Land Revenue Code, 1928

• Section 190: Allows resumption of service-tenure lands if service is not rendered.

• Section 192: Bars civil court jurisdiction over hereditary office-related property.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The Supreme Court ruled that “patelki inam” lands are not private or joint family property but grants provided as emoluments for performing the office of patel. Only the officiating patel is entitled to the land under prevailing laws. The Court emphasized that neither family partition nor mere possession could override statutory powers of the State to resume and regrant the land to the working patel. It concluded that the Government had jurisdiction under Section 190 of the Berar Land Revenue Code and the Patels and Patwaris Law, 1900, and resumption was valid.

b. OBITER DICTA

i) The Court noted that even in absence of sanads, long-standing administrative treatment of the inam lands as service grants confirms their character. The statements of patel family members in prior proceedings acknowledged their limited rights, corroborating the Government’s interpretation.

c. GUIDELINES

• The Government can resume service grants if the incumbent fails to perform duties.

• Such lands are not subject to family partition if the law mandates personal performance.

• Revenue authorities are the final adjudicators of service land rights under relevant Codes.

• Civil courts lack jurisdiction in emolument-related disputes of hereditary village offices.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that service grants like patelki inam lands are inherently tied to the actual performance of public duties and cannot transform into private property merely by virtue of hereditary office or family possession. The judgment reflects a balance between traditional landholding practices and statutory mechanisms developed to rationalize public land use. It discourages misuse of hereditary tenure claims and upholds governmental authority to regulate land connected to public services. This case is a cornerstone in distinguishing service land tenure from private proprietary rights under Indian land jurisprudence.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
i. Venkata Jagannadha v. Veerabhadrayya, (1921) LR 48 IA 244
ii. Krishnarao v. Nilkantha and Others, AIR 1922 Nag 52
iii. Mir Subhan Ali v. Imami Begum, (1925) 21 Nag L.R. 117
iv. Lakhamgouda Basavaprabhu Sardesai v. Baswantrao and Others, AIR 1931 PC 157
v. Jaiwantrao v. Sahebrao, (1933) 29 Nag L.R. 210
vi. Raje Shrinivasrao v. Raje Vinayakrao, ILR 1949 Nag 1

b. Important Statutes Referred
i. Inam Rules, 1859 – Link
ii. Patels and Patwaris Law, 1900 – Link
iii. Berar Land Revenue Code, 1928 – Link