Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
State of M.P. and others, Appellants
Versus
Balkishan Nathani and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 370 and 371 of 1900, dated 30-1-1963. 395
Advocates appeared
Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate, (Mr. I. N. Shroff, Advocate, with him), for Appellants, Mr. G. B. Pai, Advocate and M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, Ravinder Narain and O. C. Mathur, Advocates of M/s J. B. Dadachanji and Co., for Respondents (Nos. 2 to 6)
LAND REVENUE - Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (1 of 1951) - Ss. 3, 4, 15(3), 40, 84 - Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917 (C. P. Act I of 1917) - Ss. 45, 46, 47(1) - Nistar Officer - Jurisdiction to review order made under S. 40 of the Act - Correction of entries in annual papers - Scope of S. 47(1) of the Land Revenue Act.
Fact of the Case:
The Nistar Officer initiated proceedings to reopen an order made under S. 40 of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950, on the basis of entries found in the annual papers prepared under S. 47 of the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917. The High Court quashed the proceedings, holding that the Nistar Officer had no jurisdiction to review the order or to correct the entries in the annual papers.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that: * The Nistar Officer had no jurisdiction to review the order made under S. 40 of the Act, as there was no provision in the Act for reviewing such orders. * Section 15(3) of the Act, which allows the Compensation Officer, Deputy Commissioner, or Settlement Commissioner to review an order passed by themselves or their predecessors in office, does not apply to orders made under S. 40 of the Act. * Section 47(1) of the Land Revenue Act does not authorize the Deputy Commissioner to correct entries in the annual papers to the effect that the proprietor was not in cultivation of the land between 1949 and the date of the investigation, as the scope of the annual papers is limited to recording existing facts and changes occurring during the course of the year, and does not extend to investigating and deciding on the correctness of entries made in earlier annual papers.
Issues: 1. Whether the Nistar Officer had jurisdiction to review the order made under S. 40 of the Act? 2. Whether S. 15(3) of the Act applies to orders made under S. 40 of the Act? 3. Whether S. 47(1) of the Land Revenue Act authorizes the Deputy Commissioner to correct entries in the annual papers to the effect that the proprietor was not in cultivation of the land between 1949 and the date of the investigation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Act does not contain any provision for reviewing orders made under S. 40, and therefore, such orders become final. 2. Section 15(3) of the Act, which allows the Compensation Officer, Deputy Commissioner, or Settlement Commissioner to review an order passed by themselves or their predecessors in office, does not apply to orders made under S. 40 of the Act, as S. 13 of the Act, which deals with orders made by the Compensation Officer, does not include orders made under S. 40. 3. Section 47(1) of the Land Revenue Act does not authorize the Deputy Commissioner to correct entries in the annual papers to the effect that the proprietor was not in cultivation of the land between 1949 and the date of the investigation, as the scope of the annual papers is limited to recording existing facts and changes occurring during the course of the year, and does not extend to investigating and deciding on the correctness of entries made in earlier annual papers.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the High Court's decision was upheld.
Judgment
SUBBA RAO, J. : These two appeals by special leave are filed against the common judgment of a Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur in writ petitions Nos. 22 of 1955 and 274 of 1955 filed by respondents 1, 3 to 6 herein in the said Court.
2. The facts in Appeal No. 370 of 1960 may be stated first. Respondent 1, Seth Balkishan Nathani, was the proprietor and lambardar of Mouza Sonpairi in Tehsil and District Raipur. On January 14, 1947, he executed perpetual pastas in favour of his wife, Yashodabai, since deceased, and respondents 4, 5 and 6 in respect of khudkasht and grass lands of Mouza Sonpairi. In Tabdili Jamabandi of the year 1941347 the said lands were recorded as the Occupancy Tenancy Holdings of the said respondent 4 to 6 and respondent 2, Govindlal Nathani, the legal representative of Yashodabai. The same entry was found in the Jamabandis of the subsequent years. The Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, l950 (1 of 1951), hereinafter called the Act, came into force on January 22, 1951. Thereafter in due course the estate of the said proprietor was duly notified under S. 3 of the Act. On March 25, 1952, the Deputy Commissioner, Land Reforms, acting under S. 40 of the Act, recognised the said Balkishan Nathani as the pattadar and settled the assessment payable by him in respect of Khasra Nos. 289/2 and 366/7 of Mouza Sonpairi. No appeal was preferred against that order. Thereafter, appellant 2, the Nistar Officer-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, Raipur, started proceedings against the respondents for the correction of old annual papers in Mouza Sonpairi with a view to reopen the earlier order made under S. 40 of the Act, as the earlier order was passed on the basis of the entries found in Tabdili Jamabandi of the year 1946-47 and subsequent years. Respondent 1, Seth Balkishan Nathani, raised an objection that appellant 2 had no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings. Appellant 2 overruled the objection and made the following order:
"On the next hearing, 5 witnesses may be produced for proving cultivation. The names of the purchasers, to whom the lands have been sold, be obtained from the Patwari and a notice he served on them that they should file their statements as well as should bring the sale-deeds along with them. Hearing fixed for date 4-8-1954. The non-applicants may file other evidence which they wish to file."
It will be seen from the said order that the second appellant purported to make an inquiry in regard to the factum of cultivation as well as the validity of the sale-deeds whereunder respondent I created interests in the other respondents. Respondent 1 preferred an appeal from that order to the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, but the same was dismissed on the ground that it was premature. Thereupon, the respondents filed the writ petition No. 22 of 1955 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
3. Civil Appeal No. 371 of 1960 relates to Patti No. 1 of Mouza Kachna in Tehsil and District Raipur. Respondent 1 was the Proprietor and Lambardar of the said Mouza. On February 19, 1948, the said Seth Balkishan Nathani executed perpetual pastas in respect of the said lands in favour of the same respondents as in the other appeal. In the annual papers the said lands were recorded as the Occupancy Tenancy Holdings of respondents 2 to 6. On December 8, 1954, appellant 2 made an inspection of the said lands and made the following order on December 9, 1954:
" * * * *
2. There were found to be obvious mistakes in Government documents Khasra, Jamabandi and Tabdilat, Mistakes discharged (discovered) by me in Patwari papers have been corrected.
3. Ex-proprietors (I) Balkishan Nathani and others and (2) Narayanrao made absolutely bogus transfers in favour of their family members, namely
(i) (a) Kamlabai, (b) Pana Bai, (c) Yashodabai, (d) Chhote Bai of Nathani family.
(ii) Kamla Bai Chitnavis, wife of Narayanrao, ax-proprietor.
Patwari entered names without cul
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
