SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(SC) 781

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM & RANJAN GOGOI, JJ.
GWALIOR SUGAR CO. LTD. & ANR. - Appellant(s)
VERSUS
ANIL GUPTA AND ORS. - Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 7760 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 1861 of 2008)
Decided on : 02-11-2012.

MPORTANT POINT
Status of bhumiswami discussed.

Headnote:(a) Administration of Justice - Judicial Propriety - Invoking provisions of repealed enactments - Not permissible. (Para 9)

        (b) Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1050 - Section 101 r/w section 39, M.P. Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951 - Status of a person recorded in the revenue records of the later years as a bhumiswami - Deemed to be pursuant to grant of a fresh lease. (Para 12)

        (c) M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 - Section 165 - Bar on transfer does not apply to non-agricultural land. (Para 13)

       Facts of the case:

        1. The Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. was allotted 215 bighas land in 1941 by the then Zamindar. The patta specifically authorised the company to use the land for the sugar factory only and any other activity including agricultural activity was barred. The patta was to be in force till the life of the sugar factory and the company was not authorised to alienate any part of the property by sale or transfer.

        2. Due to financial difficulties the company alienated 9 bighas of land.

        3. The High Court under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 (since repealed) and the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agriculture Holding Act, 1960 directed for demarcation of excess land and vesting of the excess land, both urban and agricultural, in the Government. Furthermore, the appellant - Company has been restrained from affecting any transfers of the urban land allotted to it and all such transfers as may have been made have been declared as null and void by the High Court.

       Finding of the Court:

        There is no legal bar on the appellant to transfer land allotted to it.

       Result : Appeal allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

Ranjan Gogoi, J.-Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.12.2007 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in a Public Interest Litigation registered and numbered as Writ Petition No.1773/2006. By the order impugned in the present appeal, directions have been issued by the High Court for demarcation of the surplus land of the appellant – Company both under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 (since repealed) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Urban Land Ceiling Act’) as well as the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agriculture Holding Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act). After the demarcation of the excess land in terms of the directions issued by the High Court, further directions have been issued for vesting of the excess land, both urban and agricultural, in the Government. Furthermore, the appellant – Company has been restrained from affecting any transfers of the urban land allotted to it and all such transfers as may have been made have been declared as null and void by the High Court.

3. A brief resume of the relevant facts in which the above noted directions have been issued by the High Court may now be set out: The appellant, a private limited company, is the owner of a sugar mill located at Dabra, district Gwalior in the State of Madhya Pradesh. A total of 215 bighas (approximately) of land was allotted to the appellant – Company in Samvat 1998 (corresponding to English Calender year 1941) on the basis of 6 pattas issued by Zamindar in whom the land had come to be vested. The pattas specified that the land was meant for setting up of the sugar factory and any kind of agricultural operations therein was prohibited. The pattas also specified that the same would be valid till the existence of the factory. After setting up of the sugar mill the Company appears to have run into certain financial difficulties and for the upkeep of the sugar mill and for modernization thereof the Company by a Resolution decided to sell/transfer some parts of the vacant land allotted to it. In fact some surplus land stood transferred by way of sale to certain individuals and the area so transferred is roughly about 9 bighas. In these circumstances, the Writ Petition in question was filed as a Public Interest Litigation contending that surplus land has been transferred contrary to the terms of the patta in connivance and collusion with the officials of the State Government. According to the petitioner more such transfers were contemplated.

4. The stand of the officials – respondents, initially, was that land measuring about 178 bighas stood recorded in the name of the appellant – Company in the revenue record of Samvat 2013. In the said records the name of the appellant was recorded as a “pucca tenant” under Section 54 (vii) of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tenancy Act’). Thereafter with the coming into force of the MP Land Revenue Code in the year 1959 the name of the appellant – Company was recorded as a ‘bhumiswami’ in respect of the aforesaid land. The revenue records in support of the above facts were in fact enclosed to the return filed before the High Court on behalf of the State. A report dated 2.5.2003 of the primary revenue authority i.e. Naib Tehsildar reciting the above facts and the fact that the appellant Company was exempted from the operation of the provisions of the Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act by an order dated 8.1.1976 passed by the competent authority was also enclosed to the said return. Subsequently, however, an additional return dated 7.8.2007 was filed on behalf of the state wherein the right of the appellant to transfer the land contrary to the terms of the pattas issued to it was questioned, notwithstanding, its status as a Bhumiswami under the Land Revenue Code, 1959.

5. The appellant – Company and its principal Director who were

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top