Abolition

Abolition of the post

Abolition of Proprietary Rights

Abolition of department

The abolition of the taluqdari tenure, however, did not deprive the taluqdars of the lands in their possession, and Section 5(1)(b) provides that a taluqdar holding any taluqdari land shall be deemed to be an occupant within the meaning of the Land Revenue Code or any other law for the time being in force. Then comes Section 6 which provides that all public roads, lanes etc., not situate within the wantas belonging to a taluqdar, shall vest in the government and all rights held by a taluqdar in such property shall be deemed to have been extinguished. Section 7 provides for payment of compensation to taluqdars for extinguishment of rights u/s 6 Clause (b)(i) thereof provides that if the property acquired is ‘waste or uncultivated but is culturable land’, the amount of compensation shall not exceed three the assessment of the land. Section 14 provides for payment of compensation to taluqdars for extinguishment or modification of any other right where such extinguishment or modification amounts to transference to public ownership of such lands or any right in and over such land, i.e. in any land other than those in respect of which provision for the payment of compensation has been made u/s 7.

The scheme under the Personal Inams Abolition Act is more or less similar. Section 4 provides that notwithstanding anything contained 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 (1) all personal inams shall be deemed to have been extinguished, with effect from and on the appointed date; (2) all rights legally subsisting on the said date in respect of such personal inams shall be deemed to have been extinguished, save as expressly provided by or under the provisions of the Act. Similarly Section 5(2)(a) provides that an inamdar in respect of the inam land in his actual possession or in possession of a person holding from him other than an inferior holder referred to in Clause(b), shall be entitled to all the rights and shall be liable to all obligations in respect of such land as an occupant. Under Clause(b) an inferior holder holding an inam land is entitled to the same rights.[Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949 ]

Hyderabad Inams Abolition Act, 1955 – Section 3(1) – Inams which were abolished vested in the State including all rights and interest except those saved by express provisions in the Act – Abkari rights of the Inamdar of Inams also stand abolished under the Act – Suit for declaration that the Abkari rights were not included in the Abolition Act-Hence dismissed – Abolition of Inams being Agrarian Reform compensation under Section 12 not challengeable.
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970-

Karnataka (Personal and Miscellaneous Inams Abolition) Act, 1954 — Sections 5, 11, 8, 1(3)(d) — Grant of occupancy rights — Petitioner had sought for grant of occupancy rights of land claiming that he was a permanent tenant under the inamdar. An order was passed in his favour granting such right on the footing that he was a permanent tenant in terms of Section 5 of the Inams Abolition Act — It is the case of the petitioner that apart from several other proceedings in relation to the land in question, there were proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar, respondent under the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 — Whether the lands in question were excluded from the purview of the Inams Abolition Act, as contended and whether the order passed in favour of the holders of the lands in the first instance was a nullity and hence, could be ignored in the Tahsildar having initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Village Offices Abolition Act.

With the abolition of inams, the entire land vested, in the Government in the year 1952. On the abolition of the inam, Muniga @ Thoti Muniga and Muniveerappa sought for registration of occupancy rights under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act. It is contended that the service inams held by Shanbhogs, Patels, Thotis, Talaris and Nirgantis, had been excluded from the purview of the said Act and as such, there was no provision by which occupancy rights could have been granted under the said Act. However, u/s 8 of the Inams Abolition Act, they were registered as “holders” of the said inam lands and there was no confirmation of grant of occupancy rights. They were only treated as “holders” of the service inams and the allegation that the Special Deputy Commissioner had granted occupancy rights in their favour, is incorrect, as service inams are excluded from the Inams Abolition Act.  M. Meenakshi and Others Vs. Metadin Agarwal (D) by LRs. and Others, (2006) 8 SCALE 566 : (2006) 7 SCC 470 : (2006) 5 SCR 505 Supp Sri Kempaiah Vs. Smt. Chikkaboramma and Others, (1998) 7 AD 446 : AIR 1998 SC 3335 : (1988) 6 JT 379 : (1998) 5 SCALE 287 : (1998) 6 SCC 667 : (1998) AIRSCW 3275 : (1998) 7 Supreme 342 Narayanaswamy and Others Vs. The Tahasildar, M. Venkataswamy and Muninarayana, (2010) 6 KarLJ 439 : (2010) 3 KCCR 1883

Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition Act, 1951

Hyderabad (Abolition of jagirs) Regulation- We shall first take up the Abolition Regulation. Under s. 6 of this Regulation, the Jagirs were included in “Diwani” (Government) as from the “appointed day” to be fixed under s. 5 and thereupon the powers, rights and liabilities of the Jagirdars in relation to the Jagirs ceased to be exercisable by or against them. Section 3 provided for the appointment of an officer called the Jagir Administrator. Section 8 provided for payment to Government of a specified percentage of the gross revenue, which for practical purposes may be taken to be the total realisation or income of the Jagir, for meeting the administration expenses. Section 13 required a separate account in respect of each Jagir to be kept by the Jagir Administrator. Section 10 provided for payment to the Jagirdar out of the income of the Jagir of a sum equivalent to half of what he was getting before the commencement of the Regulation, as remuneration for managing the Jagir and for distribution of a like sum among the Hissedars (sharers in the Jagir income with the Jagirdar) in a certain proportion. Section 11 provided that the net income of the Jagir calculated in the manner prescribed, would be distributed between the Jagirdar and Hissedars in the proportion in which they were entitled to the income under the law in force before the commencement of the Regulation. Section 14 provided that the amounts payable to Jagirdars under Regulation “shall be deemed to be interim maintenance allowances payable until such time as the terms for commutation of Jagirs are determined.”

Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953, (Himachal 15 of 1954) (hereinafter called the Abolition Act). On January 26, 1955, this Abolition Act was brought into force by a notification issued u/s 1(3) thereof. It will be convenient at this stage of refer to some of the relevant sections of the Abolition Act. Section 11 confers a new right on the tenants to acquire the interests of the land-owners. According to this section notwithstanding any law, custom, or contract to the contrary a tenant other than a sub-tenant shall, on application made to the compensation officer at any time after the commencement of the Act, be entitled to acquire, on payment of compensation, the right, title and interest of the land-owner in the land of the tenancy held by him under the landowner subject to certain terms and conditions therein mentioned. Section 14 permits the acquisition by the tenant of the rights of the landowner in a portion of the lands of the tenancy in certain specified circumstances on the surrender of the rest of the lands. Section 15 sanctions the acquisition by the State Government of the rights of the landowners by notification in the Gazette declaring that, as from such date and in respect of such area as may be specified in the notification, the right, title and interest of the landowner in the lands of any tenancy held under him by a tenant shall stand transferred to and vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances created in such lands by the landowner. Section 16 provides for the payment to the landowner, whose right, title and interest in lands, would be acquired by the State Government u/s 15, of compensation to be calculated, as far as practicable, according to the provisions of sections 12 and 13. Section 27 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of the foregoing sections of that Chapter, a landowner who holds land, the annual land revenue of which exceeds Rs. 125 per year, the right, title and interest of such owner in such land shall be deemed to have been transferred and vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Sub-section (3) of this section lays down that the landowner whose right is acquired under sub-section (1) by the State Government, shall be entitled to receive compensation which shall be determined by the Compensation Officer having regard to sections 17 and 18 of this Act, in accordance with the provisions of Schedule II, but in the case of such occupancy tenant who is liable to pay rent in terms of land revenue or the multiple of land revenue, the compensation payable to his landowner shall be computed in accordance with Schedule I. The compensation provided in Schedule II to the Abolition Act may in certain cases work out to no more than twice the land revenue. Section 39 fixes the maximum rent at one fourth of the crop which, it is apprehended, may not even cover the land revenue and the local rates and cesses. Section 80 provides for the State management of lands in certain cases therein mentioned.

On July 1, 1952, the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (1 of 1951), hereinafter called the Act, came into force. As a consequence of this enactment, the zamindari rights of the judgment-debtor were abolished.

A right of appeal being a substantive right the institution of a suit carries with it the implication that all successive appeals available under the law then in force would be preserved to the parties to the suit throughout the rest of the career of the suit. There are two exceptions to the application of this rule, viz. (1) when by competent enactment such right of appeal is taken away expressly or impliedly with retrospective effect and (2) when the court to which appeal lay at the commencement of the suit stands abolished.