A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case revolves around the conflict between private landowners and the State regarding reassessment of land revenue under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. The Supreme Court adjudicated on whether the Government’s confirmation of a Collector’s order rejecting reassessment of agricultural lands—converted for non-agricultural use—amounted to a valid “direction” under Rule 92 of the Code. The appellants, successors of Haji Ali Mohamed Haji Cassum, sought to enforce reassessment on such lands to claim non-agricultural rent from tenants. The Supreme Court ruled that the Collector had an imperative duty under Rule 92 to reassess and that mere confirmation of his rejection by the Government was not a valid contrary directive. Therefore, the State was directed to reassess and levy non-agricultural revenue on the lands and pay it to the appellants. The decision clarified administrative obligations, the interplay between statutory duties and executive discretion, and reinforced accountability under land revenue laws.

Keywords: Bombay Land Revenue Code, Rule 92, reassessment, agricultural land, non-agricultural use, Collector’s duty, government direction, landowner rights, civil liability, Supreme Court India.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Fatma Haji Ali Mohammad Haji and Others v. The State of Bombay

ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1950

iii) Judgement Date: February 5, 1951

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: S.R. Das (presided), Justice Mehr Chand Mahajan, Justice S.R. Fazl Ali, Justice B.K. Mukherjea, and Justice Chandrasekhara Aiyar

vi) Author: Justice Mehr Chand Mahajan

vii) Citation: AIR 1951 SC 266; [1951] SCR 266

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 48(2) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879

• Rule 92 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules

• Section 216 and Section 214 of the Code

• Section 80, Section 88 CPC

• Article 14 Limitation Act

• Section 4(c) of the Revenue Jurisdiction Act

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

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:

• Revenue Law

• Administrative Law

• Civil Law

• Property Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The central issue in the case arose from a dispute over revenue reassessment of agricultural lands that had been converted for non-agricultural purposes in Dahisar village. Originally part of Malad Estate, the land was granted in 1819 to two brothers by the East India Company. The rights subsequently passed to Haji Cassum, and later his son, the plaintiff. After a revised survey in 1926 under Section 216 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, the Collector failed to assess several converted lands despite his mandatory duty under Rule 92. The plaintiff repeatedly requested reassessment, but the State denied the request and upheld the Collector’s refusal without any formal government direction. The trial court partially accepted the claim, and the High Court gave limited relief. The Supreme Court had to determine if the Collector was statutorily bound to reassess, and whether the State’s mere confirmation of rejection constituted a legal directive under the statute.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The lands in question belonged to the village Dahisar, which was part of a grant from the East India Company to the Dady brothers in 1819. Haji Cassum purchased Dahisar village in 1900 for ₹1,30,000 and, upon his death, it passed to the plaintiff. In 1926, after the plaintiff applied under Section 216 of the Code, the village underwent a revised revenue survey. The survey revealed that several fields were being used for non-agricultural purposes, but the authorities marked them as “kharaba” and imposed no assessment.

The plaintiff sought reassessment in 1934 for these lands under Rule 92, which mandated the Collector to alter assessment if agricultural land was converted for other uses. However, in 1935, the Collector refused without giving reasons. The Commissioner and Governor in Council upheld the Collector’s decision, but the government never issued a resolution or notification under Rule 92. Despite tenant use of land for building and commercial activity, the government failed to levy non-agricultural assessment. The plaintiff approached the courts after the denial of his request, seeking reassessment and damages.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the Collector was legally bound under Rule 92 to reassess agricultural land converted to non-agricultural use.

ii) Whether the Government’s confirmation of the Collector’s rejection constituted a valid “direction” to the contrary under Rule 92.

iii) Whether failure to reassess constituted violation of civil rights arising from proprietary interests.

iv) Whether the plaintiff had a legal remedy under civil law for enforcement of such reassessment and compensation.

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the Collector had an imperative duty under Rule 92 to reassess lands converted to non-agricultural use. The Collector’s refusal lacked legal authority because the rule imposed a mandatory obligation.

They argued that no “direction to the contrary” had ever been issued by the Government in the form of a resolution or notification as required by law. Therefore, the rejection could not qualify as a lawful exception under Rule 92.

The plaintiff had vested rights under the 1819 conveyance from the East India Company and any refusal to assess non-agricultural revenue affected his civil and proprietary rights. The government’s arbitrary confirmation of the Collector’s order could not override those rights.

They also relied on the Resolution dated 5 June 1907, which affirmed that the rules would be amended if they harmed the inamdars. Therefore, the statutory obligation remained, and government inaction amounted to a dereliction of duty.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that Section 48(2) gave discretion to the Government in altering assessments. They argued that the rule did not impose any enforceable obligation and merely enabled reassessment at the government’s will.

The Collector and the State had lawfully exercised discretion, and the courts could not question administrative decisions in revenue matters. They invoked Section 4(c) of the Revenue Jurisdiction Act to claim the suit was barred.

They also claimed that since the government had confirmed the Collector’s refusal, it amounted to a valid “direction to the contrary” under Rule 92, even if not in the form of a resolution.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Section 48(2) of Bombay Land Revenue Code – Mandates reassessment of land revenue when use of land changes.

ii) Rule 92 of Bombay Land Revenue Rules – Directs Collector to reassess land used for non-agricultural purposes unless directed otherwise.

iii) Section 214, 216 of Bombay Land Revenue Code – Authorises government to create rules and revise surveys.

iv) Section 88 of the Code – Provision for issuance of commissions.

v) Section 80 of CPC – Mandates notice before suing the government.

vi) Section 4(c) of Revenue Jurisdiction Act – Bars civil suits over government revenue actions.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The Supreme Court ruled that Rule 92 imposes an imperative duty on the Collector. He must reassess when agricultural land is used for other purposes. There was no legal direction from Government to the contrary.

It held that mere confirmation of the Collector’s rejection could not override a statutory duty. Government directions affecting civil rights must be formal and unambiguous.

The Court found the Government had failed in its duty and that the plaintiff was entitled to have the reassessment done for lands in Schedule II, just as it had been granted for Schedule I.

b. OBITER DICTA 

i) The Court noted that the government’s casual approach caused “lengthy and unnecessary litigation.” If the Collector had acted as per law, the dispute would have never arisen.

c. GUIDELINES 

• Directions by Government under Rule 92 must be formal, express, and notified.

• Collectors must act unless such express direction exists.

• Mere affirmation or rejection of reassessment does not qualify as lawful direction.

• Civil courts may intervene where statutory duties are evaded.

• Revenue authorities must treat inamdars’ proprietary rights seriously.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The case stands as a landmark interpretation of administrative duty under land revenue law. It reinforced the principle that delegated authorities like Collectors must obey statutory commands unless clearly overruled by government. It narrowed arbitrary discretion and required express formal direction when overriding individual rights. The ruling ensured that landowners could expect consistency, transparency, and fairness in administrative assessments and reaffirmed the judiciary’s role in checking executive inaction.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

None explicitly cited beyond the current judgment.

b. Important Statutes Referred

i) Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879
ii) Bombay Land Revenue Rules
iii) Revenue Jurisdiction Act
iv) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
v) Limitation Act, 1908