1. Dispute regarding whether mango trees planted along a road constitute a grove under Section 5(b)(iv) of the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act, 1951. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1967 Supreme(SC) 128
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH AND J.M. SHELAT, JJ.
Sardar Chandrojirao Angre, Appellant
Versus
The State of M.P., Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 98 of 1965,
D /-4-10-1967.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. A. K. Sen, Senior Advocate, (Mr. B. D. Gupta, Advocate and M/s. Rameshwar Nath and Mahinder Narain Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co. with him), for Appellant; Mr. I. N. Shroff, Advocate, for Respondent.
Important Points
A "grove" is defined by its compactness and a sufficient number of trees to preclude the land's primary use for other purposes. While roadside shade trees generally aren't groves, dense clusters along a road may qualify if they meet these criteria.
Subject
Civil Law - Land Laws
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act, 1951 - Sections 4(1), 5(b)(iv) and 5(c) - Resumption of jagir lands - Definition of "grove" - Whether trees planted along the sides of a road to provide shade constitute a "grove" - A "grove" implies compactness or substantial compactness, consisting of a group of trees in sufficient number to preclude the land on which they stand from being primarily used for a purpose other than as a grove-land (Paras 4, 6).
(B) Statutory Interpretation - When a term is not defined in the Act, it should be understood in its ordinary dictionary sense - A grove is generally a small wood or a group of trees standing together without undergrowth, or furnishing shade for avenues or walks (Para 5).
(C) Roadside trees - Trees standing in a file on the road side intended to furnish shade to the road would not fulfill the requirement of a grove in ordinary parlance, unless there are specific clusters of trees sufficient in number and proximity to preclude the land from being used for other purposes (Paras 6, 7).
Facts of the case:
An ex-jagirdar had constructed a road and lined both sides with mango trees. Following the passing of an Act for the resumption of jagir lands, the right, title, and interest in the jagir vested in the State. The State subsequently auctioned the mangoes from the said trees. The ex-jagirdar objected, claiming the trees constituted a "grove" under the Act and therefore continued to belong to him. The claim was rejected by the revenue authorities and the High Court on the ground that the trees could not be said to constitute a "grove".
Findings of Court:
The court found that while trees in a simple file along a road for shade do not typically constitute a grove, it is possible that certain clusters of trees along such a road could be sufficiently dense to be recognized as a grove.
Issues: Whether trees standing on the two sides of a road can be said to be a "grove" within the meaning of Section 5(b)(iv) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The term "grove" conveys a sense of compactness and must consist of a group of trees sufficient in number to preclude the land from being primarily used for other purposes, such as cultivation. While roadside trees for shade generally do not qualify, the court held that the appellant should have an opportunity to establish if any specific groups of trees along the road meet these criteria of number and proximity.
Result: Appeal allowed.
(B) Statutory Interpretation - When a term is not defined in the Act, it should be understood in its ordinary dictionary sense - A grove is generally a small wood or a group of trees standing together without undergrowth, or furnishing shade for avenues or walks (Para 5).
(C) Roadside trees - Trees standing in a file on the road side intended to furnish shade to the road would not fulfill the requirement of a grove in ordinary parlance, unless there are specific clusters of trees sufficient in number and proximity to preclude the land from being used for other purposes (Paras 6, 7).
Facts of the case:
An ex-jagirdar had constructed a road and lined both sides with mango trees. Following the passing of an Act for the resumption of jagir lands, the right, title, and interest in the jagir vested in the State. The State subsequently auctioned the mangoes from the said trees. The ex-jagirdar objected, claiming the trees constituted a "grove" under the Act and therefore continued to belong to him. The claim was rejected by the revenue authorities and the High Court on the ground that the trees could not be said to constitute a "grove".
Findings of Court:
The court found that while trees in a simple file along a road for shade do not typically constitute a grove, it is possible that certain clusters of trees along such a road could be sufficiently dense to be recognized as a grove.
Issues: Whether trees standing on the two sides of a road can be said to be a "grove" within the meaning of Section 5(b)(iv) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The term "grove" conveys a sense of compactness and must consist of a group of trees sufficient in number to preclude the land from being primarily used for other purposes, such as cultivation. While roadside trees for shade generally do not qualify, the court held that the appellant should have an opportunity to establish if any specific groups of trees along the road meet these criteria of number and proximity.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
A.K.SEN GUPTA, B.D.GUPTA, I.M.SHROFF, Mahinder Narain, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY
A.K.SEN GUPTA, B.D.GUPTA, I.M.SHROFF, Mahinder Narain, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY
Table of Contents
2. Whether roadside trees intended for shade constitute a grove, or if specific compact clusters along such a road could be classified as groves. (Para 2 , 7 )
3. A grove must be a compact group of trees sufficient in number to preclude the land from being primarily used for other purposes, like cultivation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
4. Roadside trees in a file for shade are not groves, but compact clusters of trees may qualify if they preclude other primary land use. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. Appeal allowed; case remanded to High Court for the Board of Revenue to determine if specific clusters of trees along the road constitute groves. (Para 8 )
6. What constitutes a grove under the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act, 1951?
A grove is a small wood or a cluster of trees characterized by substantial compactness and a sufficient number of trees to preclude the land from being primarily used for other purposes, such as cultivation, without being large enough to be classified as a forest. (Para 5 , 6 )
7. Do trees planted in a file along a roadside for shade qualify as a grove?
No, trees standing in a file on the roadside intended to furnish shade to the road do not fulfill the requirements of a grove as understood in ordinary parlance. (Para 6 )
8. Must a grove consist of fruit-bearing trees or be planted by human agency to be legally recognized?
No, the law does not require that the trees in a grove be fruit-bearing or that they have been planted by human labor or agency; they may be of natural growth. (Para 4 , 6 )
Judgement
SHELAT, J. :- The appellant is the ex-jagirdar of certain villages called Jagir Nevri Bhorasa. It appears that while the jagir was in his possession he had constructed roads one of which is the road connecting Bhorasa with Dewas Astha Road. The road about 11/2 miles in length was lined on both sides with mango trees. In 1951 the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act, 28 of 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was passed for resumption of jagir lands in the State. Under that Act the right, title and interest of the appellant in his said jagir were extinguished and the jagir lands vested in the State. In 1955 the Tehsildar put up the mangoes grown on the said trees for Public auction. By his application dated February 8, 1955 the appellant objected to the said auction claiming that the said trees were planted and reared by him, that they constituted a "grove" within the meaning of S. 5 (b) (iv) of the Act and therefore continued to belong to him. The Tehsildar rejected the application. The appellant s appeal and thereafter a revision before the Board of Revenue were also likewise rejected. The appellant then filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh but that also was dismissed on the ground that the said trees could not be said to constitute a "grove". The appellant has filed his appeal after obtaining special leave.
2. The only question arising in this appeal is whether the said trees standing on the two sides of the said road can be said to be a "grove" within the meaning of Section 5 (b) (iv).
3. The Act was passed for resumption of jagir lands in the State and to carry out certain land reforms in the jagir areas. Section 3 provides for the date of resumption and Section 4 (1) lays down the consequences of resumption. Under sub-section (1) of that section, the right, title and interest of a jagirdar in his jagir lands including forests, trees, fisheries, tanks, wells, ponds etc., stand resumed to the State as from the date of resumption. The section also provides for resumption of the right, title and interest of the jagirdar in all buildings on jagir lands used for schools, hospitals and other public purposes. Section 5, however, provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 4 the jagirdar shall continue to remain in possession of land cultivated personally by him; of open enclosures used for agricultural or domestic purposes and in continuous possession for twelve years immediately before the date of resumption, all open house sites purchased for valuable consideration all private buildings, places of worship, and wells situated in, and trees standing on lands included in the aforesaid enclosures and house sites and/or land appertaining to such buildings or places of worship within the limits of village sites. Sub-cl. (iv) of Section 5 (b) reads as under :-
"all groves wherever situate belonging to or held by the Jagirdar or any other person, shall continue to belong to or be held by such Jagirdar or other person, as the case may be, and the land thereof with the areas appurtenent thereto shall be settled on him by the Government according to the provisions of the Madhya Bharat Revenue Administration and Ryotwari Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007."
Under cl. (c) also the jagirdar is allowed to continue to remain in possession of all tanks, trees, wells and buildings in or on occupied land belonging to or held by the jagirdar or any other person.
4. These provisions show clearly that the legislature has used the word "trees" at three places in three different contexts: in secs. 4 (a), 5 (b) and 5 (c) apart from the expression "all groves wherever situate" in sub-cl. (iv) of sec. 5 (b). Whereas under sec. 4 (a) the trees are to vest in the State Government along with the forests, fisheries etc., the trees mentioned in sec. 5(b) (iii) and (c) are allowed to continue to belong to and be held by the jagirdar. Obviously the word "trees" in these provisions has not been used in any un
