Ottas and chabutras, being structures built within the limits of the village site, fall within the definition of "buildings" in S. 5(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950, and therefore must be settled with the ex-proprietor along with the land appurtenant to those structures.

Headnote:
MADHYA PRADESH ABOLITION OF PROPRIETARY RIGHTS ACT, 1950 - S. 4(1)(a), S. 5(a) - Interpretation - Ottas and chabutras - Whether buildings - Settlement with ex-proprietor.
Fact of the Case:

The respondent, an ex-proprietor of a village in Madhya Pradesh, claimed that certain ottas and chabutras (uncovered platforms and raised platforms) located in the village bazar were buildings within the meaning of S. 5(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950, and therefore should have been settled with him along with the land appurtenant to those structures.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that ottas and chabutras fall within the term "buildings" as used in S. 5(a) of the Act and, therefore, along with the land appurtenant to them, they must be settled with the respondent.
Issues: Whether ottas and chabutras are included in the term "buildings" in S. 5(a) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the term "buildings" in S. 5(a) of the Act to mean something which is built, and held that ottas and chabutras, being structures built within the limits of the village site, fall within that definition.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs, subject to the modification that the government was directed to settle with the respondent the whole of the land covered by the structures as well as land appurtenant to those structures from out of Khasra No. 61/1, with the precise area to be determined during the settlement proceedings.

Judgement

MUDHOLKAR, J. : The respondent was a proprietor of mauza Bhivapur, Tehsil Umrer, District Nagpur. His proprietary interest in the village was abolished by the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (1 of 1951). By virtue of S. 4 of the Act all rights, titles and interests, among others, in all pathways, village sites, hats, bazars and melas in Bhivapur vested in the State of Madhya Pradesh for the purposes of the State free from all encumbrances under S. 4 (1)(a) of the Act. Under the provisions of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956 those rights vested in the State of Bombay and now by virtue of Bombay Re-organization Act. 1960 (11 of 1960) in the State of Maharashtra. The provisions of S. 4(1)(a) are as follows:

"All rights, title and interest vesting in the proprietor or any person having interest in such proprietary right through the proprietor in such area including land (cultivable or barren) grass-land, scrub jungle, forest, trees, fisheries, wells, tanks, ponds, waterchannels, ferries, pathways, village sites, hats, bazars and melas .... Shall cease and be vested in the State for purposes of the State free of all encumbrances: and the mortgage debt or charge or any proprietary right shall be a charge on the amount of compensation payable for such proprietary right to the proprietor under the provisions of this Act."

2. After the Act came into operation proceedings for compensation in respect of the village Bhivapur were started in the court of the Compensation Officer, Umrer, in Revenue case No. 583/1-A-4/1950-51 decided on January 19, 1952. The Compensation Officer held that 0.14 acres of land out of Khasra No. 61/1 which is recorded in the village papers as abadi wherein a bazar is held, should be settled with the respondent under S. 5(a).

3. On aportion of the land which was used for bazar, ottas and chabutras, with or without sheds, and separated by passages, exist. It is common ground that they belong to the respondent. It is also common ground that the land covered by ottas and chabutras on which sheds have been constructed were ordered to be settled on the respondent in the revenue case referred to above. The respondent s contention, however, was that not only the sheds and the land on which those sheds were erected but also the open uncovered ottas and chabutras should also have been settled with him by virtue of the provisions of S. 5(a) of the Act along with the land appurtenant to those structures. The total area of this land, according to him, is 2.85 acres. The respondent, therefore preferred an appeal against the order of the Compensation Officer which directed settling only 0.14 acres of land on him. That appeal was, however, dismissed by the Additional Commissioner of Land Reforms and Additional Commissioner of Settlement, Madhya Pradesh, on March 28, 1952. The respondent thereafter was asked to remove his ottas and chabutras.

4. Even so, the matter of settling land covered by ottas and chabutras on the exproprietors was being considered by Government. On May 16, 1952 a press note was issued by the Directorate of Information and Publicity, Government of Madhya Pradesh, the material portion of which runs thus:

"The Government consider that the option given to ex-proprietors to remove the material etc., might cause hardship to them in such cases. Government have, therefore, decided on the following lines of action in such matters:

(i) where the ottas and chabutras were constructed in brick and stone, they should be allowed to remain with the ex-proprietors and the land thereunder should be settled with them under S. 5(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950(1 of 1951) on terms and conditions determined by the Government; and

(ii) where the ottas and chabutras are in mud, the land under them should be deemed to have vested in the State Government."

5. But after this press note was issued the Government, apparently on the advi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis