Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. C. SHAH AND J. M. SHELAT, JJ.
Shrimant Sardar Chandrojirao Angre
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh
Civil Appeal No. 98 of 1965
Decided On : 04-10-1967
The provisions of the Act show clearly that the legislature has used the word 'trees' at three places in three different contexts: in section 4 (a), 5 (b) and 5 (c) apart from the expression "all groves wherever situate" in sub-clause (iv) of section 5 (b). Whereas under section 4 (a) the trees are to vest in the State Government along with the forests, fisheries etc., the trees mentioned in section 5 (b) (iii) and (c) are allowed to continue to belong to and held by the jagirdar. Obviously the word 'trees' in these provisions has not been used in any uniform sense and therefore has to be construed in the context in which it is used. [Para 4]
(2) Abolition of Jagirs Act, 1951 (M.B.) - S. 5 (b) (iv) – grove - conditions for remaining with the Jagirdar - object of the provision.
Groves in sub-clause (iv) of section 5 (b) are included amongst properties allowed to continue to belong to and be held by the jagirdar. Sub-clause (iv) also shows that such groves need not be of fruit trees nor need the trees thereof have been planted by the Jagirdar. The words "wherever situate" indicate that it is not necessary that they should be on lands or properties allowed to be retained by the Jagirdar under S. 5. If a grove belonged to or was held by him, whether planted by him or of natural growth and wherever situate it is allowed to continue to belong to him and be held by him. The intention of the legislature appears therefore to be that properties which the Jagirdar was in personal use and possession of or in respect of which he had paid valuable consideration are to be retained by him. It is in this context that sub-clause (iv) of Sec. 5 (b) has to be construed. A grove irrespective of where it is situate, but belonging to or held by the jagirdar is to continue to belong to or to be held by him. To secure the full and proper use and enjoyment of such a grove, if it is on land other than that which is allowed to be retained by him, sub-clause (iv) further provides that the land on which such a grove stands with the areas appurtenant thereto also shall be settled upon him in accordance with the M.B. Revenue Administration and Ryotwari Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007. [Para 4]
(3) Abolition of Jagirs Act, 1950 (M.B.) - S. 5 (b) (i) – grove - meaning of - mango trees -on both sides of a road - when may be 'grove'.
(4) Words & Phrases - 'grove' - what is.
The word 'grove' conveys compactness or at any rate substantial compactness to be recognised as a unit by itself which must consist of a group of trees in sufficient number to preclude the land on which they stand from being primarily used for a purpose, such as cultivation, other than as a grove land. The language of section 5 (b) (iv) does not require however that the trees need be fruit-bearing trees nor does it require that they should have been planted by human labour or agency. But they must be sufficient in number and so standing in a group as to give them the character of a grove and to retain that character the trees would or when fully grown preclude the land on which they stand from being primarily used for a purpose other than that of a grove-land. Cultivation of a patch here and a patch there would have no significance to deprive it of its character as a grove. Therefore, trees standing in a file on the road side intended to furnish shade to the road would not fulfill the requirement of a grove even as understood in ordinary parlance. AIR 1929 All 557, AIR 1934 All. 200, AIR 1963 All. 413 & (1960) 62 Bom. L.R. 617 referred to. [Para 6]
But in trees standing along road side, there may at some places be a group or groups of trees sufficiently large in number and closely standing together to preclude that particular area from being used for cultivation or for any other purpose. At those places, the trees standing on sides of a road may be groves. 1962 RN 193 REVERSED. [Para 7]
(5) Interpretation of Statutes - term not defined in an Act - intention is that the word should be understood in ordinary dictionery sense.
Where a term used in an enactment is not defined in the definition clause, the intention of the legislature is that the word should be used in the ordinary dictionery sense. [Para 5]
Judgment :-
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 1 1/2 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 appellants appeal and thereafter a revision before the Board of Revenue were also likewise rejected. The appellant then a 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 continue a "grove". The appellant has filed this appeal after obtaining special leave.
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 sec. 5(b)(iv).
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 sec. 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 sec. 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 of such buildings or places of worship within the limits of village sites. Sub-cl. (iv) of sec. 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 appurtenant thereto shall be settled on him 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 building in or on occupied land belonging to or held by the jagirdar or any other person.
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 uniform sense and therefore has
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
