Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju
Narain Prasad Aggarwal (D) by LRs – PETITIONER
Versus
State of M.P. - RESPONDENT
Appeal (civil) 4601 of 2005
Decided on 18/05/2007
Land Revenue Code - Ownership Dispute - 1881 Land Revenue Act, 1917 Land Revenue Code, M.P.L.R. Code 1959 - The court discussed the ownership dispute over the suit property and the application of the 1881 Land Revenue Act, 1917 Land Revenue Code, and M.P.L.R. Code 1959. The court emphasized the importance of documentary evidence and the finality of orders passed by competent authorities in determining ownership rights. The court held that the revenue records and payment of rent do not determine ownership, and the State failed to establish its right of reversion over the land. The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff.
Fact of the Case:
The suit involved a dispute over the ownership of a property that was auctioned in 1859. The plaintiff and defendant claimed ownership as heirs of the previous owners. The State contended that the land was Nazul land and it had the right to terminate the lease.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State failed to establish its ownership or right of reversion over the land. The court emphasized the importance of documentary evidence and the finality of orders passed by competent authorities in determining ownership rights. The court held that the revenue records and payment of rent do not determine ownership.
Issues: The issues included the timeliness of the suit, possession of the suit property, and the ownership history of the property. The court also considered the validity of the mutation order and the State's right to terminate the lease.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of documentary evidence and the finality of orders passed by competent authorities in determining ownership rights. The court held that the revenue records and payment of rent do not determine ownership. The court also highlighted the need for a lease deed to establish the relationship of lessor and lessee and the terms and conditions of a lease.
Final Decision: The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the Trial Judge. The court allowed the appeal with costs.
JUDGMENT:
S.B. SINHA, J :
1.This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.5.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in First Appeal No. 8 of 1988 dismissing the appeal preferred from a judgment and decree dated 23.11.1987 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad in C.S. No. 12-A of 1986 dismissing the suit filed by the appellant herein.
2.The basic fact of the matter which is not in dispute is that the suit property was put in auction in or about 1859 by the ancestors of Rai Baldev Bux and Gaurabai i.e. one Ramjanaki Prasad. They, thus, became the owners of the said land, and all remained in possession thereof till their death. On or about 24.3.1986, the said land was purchased by Late Fateh Chand from Rai Baldev Bux and Gaurabai. He died in or about the year 1920. His wife, Smt. Putari Sethani, being his sole heir became the owner of the said land. She expired on 8.5.1961. It is not in dispute that she did not have any issue and the plaintiff Narain Prasad Aggarwal and defendant No. 2 Guruprasad Agarwal inherited the said property as her heirs being sons of Hira Lal, the brother of late Fateh Chand.
3.It appears from the records that a proceeding was initiated by the said Putari Sethani in connection with proceeding for assessment of enhancement of lease rent by the then Collector of Hoshangabad. An order was passed against her. The matter was taken to the Court of Commissioner of Settlements in an appeal against the order of the Collector. The said authority by an order dated 30.10.1922 passed in C.P. No. 2454/1 held :
"Mt. Putari Sethani appeals against the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Nazual,
Hoshangabad in respect of the following plots in that town. Nos. 207/18, 87/21. 70/21, 108/21. All assessed as "riths" by the Assistant Settlement Officer. This assessment had already been cancelled in general revision order dated the 14th October, 1921 recorded on the spot. 11/7 Assessed as a Sitaphal Bari, the fruits of this bari are sold, as admitted. It was muaf when held by a Mohammadan who looked after the tomb in it. As 30 years ago it came in to applicants possession by mortgage, and she is a Hindu she obviously has no right to hold muaf. The assessment order of the Assistant Settlement Officer is upheld.
No. 3/44 area 12.11 old rentRs. 52-6-5
New rent Rs. 60-8-0
1/60 do- 6,26Old rentRs. 24-0-0
New rentRs. 31-4-0
These are bungalow sites. In his letter No. 551-A, dated the 15th April 1920, the Commissioner, Narbudda Division distinctly ordered that these plots for which no leases existed by considered as held on permanent lease in accordance with the Deputy Commissioners proposals contained in his letter No. 290, dated the 24th March, 1920. The Assistant Settlement Officer Nazul has no right to enhance the rent, for in the leases executed in compliance with the Commissioners orders, a term of 30 years, with effect from the 1st April 1899 was entered. As laid down by the Hoshangabad Nazul Resolution, the term of these leases should have been extended, so as to expire with the term of the new Settlement and the rent left unaltered. The Assessment order of the Assistant Settlement Officer is therefore reversed and the old rents of these plots will be recorded in the Khasra. Deputy Commissioner will kindly have this done.
Sd/- G.G.C. Trench
Commissioner of Settlements
Central Provinces
19.10.1922"
The said order was marked as Exhibit P-3 in the suit.
4. An application was filed by the plaintiff-appellant and the defendant No. 2 for mutation of their names in the revenue records, which was allowed by an order dated 12.12.1964 but the same was set aside by an order of the appellate authority passed on 26.6.1965. By an order dated 15.3.1968, the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal opined that the land in question could not have been treated to be freehold as allegedly rent was assessed under the 1881 Land Revenue Act and 1917 Land Revenue Code and the same had not been challenged,
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
