1. Dispute over whether land recorded as common grazing land vests in the State or is saved as a grove under the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Zamindari Act. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 316
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, NAVIN SINHA, JJ.
CHATTAR SINGH & ORS. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
MADHO SINGH & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).8718 OF 2012
Decided on : 06-02-2019
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Land recorded as ‘Charnoi’ before the date of vesting vest in the State.
Land recorded as ‘Charnoi’ before the date of vesting vest in the State.
Subject
Land Ownership - Vesting of Land Rights
Act Referred
Headnote
Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951 – Section 4 and 5(f) – Land in question recorded as ‘Charnoi’ and not “khud-kasht” before the date of vesting – Common land with standing trees vest in State by virtue of section 4 – Trees standing by wayside do not make a land a ‘grove’ – Held, section 5(f) not attracted – Further, trial court decreeing the suit in favour of villagers – Further held, High Court rightly rejected claim of the appellant. (Para 9, 11, 13, 15)
(1968) 1 SCR 761 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The issue in the present appeal is whether the land recorded as ‘Charnoi’ i.e. Common land for grazing of cattle of villagers vests in State on abolition of intermediaries on 02.10.1951 or it was saved from vesting in favour of proprietor being grove under section 5(f) of the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Zamindari Act.
Finding of the Court:
There is no reason to interfere.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the presence of numerous fruit-bearing trees classifies common grazing land as a grove, thereby saving it from vesting in the State. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. Land recorded as common grazing land vests in the State; the presence of trees does not convert common land into a grove if its primary use is grazing. (Para 3 , 4 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 13 )
4. Common grazing land recorded as Charnoi vests in the State and cannot be classified as a grove under Section 5(f) if its primary purpose is public grazing. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
5. Appeal dismissed; judgment of the High Court upholding the vesting of common grazing land in the State is affirmed. (Para 14 , 15 )
6. Does land recorded as 'Charnoi' vest in the State upon the abolition of intermediaries?
Yes. Land recorded as 'Charnoi' (common grazing land for cattle) is considered common land reserved for public purpose and vests in the State under Section 4(1)(a) of the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Zamindari Act. (Para 10 , 11 , 13 )
7. What are the requirements for land to be saved from vesting as 'khud-kasht' land?
Under Section 4(2), land must be personally cultivated by the Zamindar (or through employees or hired laborers) and must be specifically recorded as 'khud-kasht' in the revenue papers before the date of vesting. (Para 9 , 10 )
8. What constitutes a 'grove' for the purpose of saving land from vesting under the Act?
A grove must consist of a group of trees in sufficient number and compactness to preclude the land on which they stand from being primarily used for any purpose other than as grove-land. (Para 12 )
9. Can common grazing land containing fruit-bearing trees be classified as a 'grove' to avoid vesting?
No. When land is primarily used as 'Charnoi' (common grazing land), it does not fall into the category of a 'grove' under Section 5(f), regardless of the number of fruit-bearing trees present. (Para 12 )
JUDGMENT :
1. The issue in the present appeal is whether the land recorded as ‘Charnoi’ i.e. Common land for grazing of cattle of villagers vests in State on abolition of intermediaries on 02.10.1951 or it was saved from vesting in favour of proprietor being grove under section 5(f) of the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Zamindari Act.
2. The plaintiffs/respondents filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction with respect to the suit land. They specifically pleaded that the suit land was recorded as Charnoi and it had been used for the purpose of grazing their cattle by the villagers and illegally it has been given to the defendants. Kalu Singh, father of defendant Nos.2 and 3, who was the ex-zamindar filed an application before the Tehsildar praying that the suit land be granted to him because it was recorded in his name before the abolition of Zamindari Rights. The Tehsildar rejected the application. Thereafter, he filed appeals before the Sub-Divisional Officer and Additional Commissioner both the authorities dismissed the appeals. Thereafter, the appeal was filed before the Board of Revenue by Kalusingh. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 2.12.1959 set aside the orders of Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Officer and Additional Commissioner and held that Kalusingh is entitled to get the land in his name as Bhumiswami, in view of Section 5(f) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act. On the basis of the aforesaid order the father of defendant Nos.2 and 3, filed an application before the Collector and Collector vide order dated 14.3.1968 granted the suit land in area 72 Bigas and 18 Biswas to the father of defendant Nos.2 and 3 as Bhumiswami. After the death of their father, defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed an application before the Collector that their names be recorded as Bhumiswami over the aforesaid land and that application has been allowed by the Collector on 13.05.1968. As against the said orders, the plaintiffs filed the suit.
3. In the instant case, the entries prior to the date of abolition clearly record the land to be Charnoi land and subsequent thereto also the land had been recorded continuously as Charnoi land. Apart from that, there was admission made by the defendant that villagers had been grazing their cattle in the land in question up to 1967. Relying upon the admission coupled with the khasra entries to which statutory presumption of correctness is attached. The Trial Court decreed the suit. However, the Appellate Court reversed the same holding that it was a grove and saved from the vesting under the provisions of Section 5(f) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951, which came into force on 2.10.1951.
4. The High Court has reversed the findings of the First Appellate Court. The High Court has considered and relied on the khasra entries to hold that it was recorded as Charnoi land as such vested in the State and it was not khud-kasht land of the ex-proprietor.
5. Shri Sushil Kumar Jain learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant(s) has vehemently argued at length. He relied upon a decision of this Court in Shrimant Sardar Chandrojirao Angre v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (1968) 1 SCR 761, to contend that such groves are saved from vesting. He submits that there were more than one lac trees of sitafal (pumpkin) and that finding has not been reversed by the High Court. As such it should be treated as ‘grove’.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has supported the judgment of the Trial Court and that of the High Court.
7. The provision contained in Section 4 of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act deals with the consequences of vesting. Section 4 is extracted hereunder:
“4. Consequence by the vesting of an estate in the State. -(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act when the notification under Section 3 in respect of any area has been published in the Gazette, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any contract, grant or document or in any other law for
