IMPORTANT POINTS
Only khudkasht agricultural land could be saved from vesting.
High Court, in second appeal, should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN MISHRA, J.

1. The question involved in the appeal is whether the land recorded in the revenue papers before the date of vesting as 'Grass’ land can be treated as khudkasht land of Ex-Zamindar.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents, as the successor of the Ex-Zamindar. At the time of the abolition of Zamindari, it was recorded as 'Grass’ land, in the name of their predecessor. They prayed for declaration of Bhumiswami rights and permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession of the land comprised in Survey Nos.77, 83, 191, 195 and 799 corresponding to new Survey Nos.37, 103 and 460 total area 83 Bighas 4 Biswas situated in village Enchada, Tehsil Nateran, District Vidisha in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The defendant – State of Madhya Pradesh treated plaintiffs/respondents as encroacher of agricultural land, and they were threatened with dispossession on 1.5.1980 and 12.10.1980, whereas they have acquired the rights of Bhumiswami under provisions contained in Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code as they became Pacca tenant on the abolition of Zamindari. The plaintiffs/respondents claimed that the land was Khudkasht land of their predecessors; Nirbhay Singh and Pratap Singh who were Zamindars of Village Enchada.

3. The State Government in the written statement denied the plaint averments. However, it was admitted that Nirbhay Singh and Pratap Singh, the predecessors were the Zamindars of the village Enchada. The land was not a Khudkasht land. It was recorded as 'Bir,' i.e., 'Grass' land before coming into force of the M.B. Zamindari Abolition Act.

4. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court affirmed the same; however, the High Court allowed the second appeal and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. They have been declared to be Bhumiswami of the land, and the permanent injunction has also been granted. Aggrieved thereby the appeal has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the State that land was not 'Khudkasht’ land. The High Court could not have reversed the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court in the second appeal. The judgment is based on the misreading of the Khasra entries and provisions of Section 2(c), and Section 4(2) of the Zamindari Abolition Act have not been correctly interpreted.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/respondents submitted that growing of Grass was also an agricultural purpose. In Khasra for Survey No.77 for Samvat year 2007, cultivation of crop of “Jwar” was mentioned, though in Col.5 thereof. Thus, the said survey No.77 did not vest in the State. The remaining land was Grassland under personal cultivation of Zamindars as such it did not vest in the State. Nirbhay Singh and Pratap Singh became pakka tenant of the disputed land and ultimately acquired the rights of Bhumiswami.

7. The main question for consideration is whether the plaintiff acquired the rights of Pakka tenant under the Zamindari Abolition Act and that of Bhumiswami under the provisions of section 158 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereafter referred to as “M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959”).

8. The Zamindari system came to be abolished on 2.10.1951 in the erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat. The Zamindari Abolition Act, had been reserved under Article 31(4) of the Constitution of India for the consideration of the Hon’ble President and received his assent in 1951 and was enforced with effect from 2.10.1951, resulting into the abolition of intermediaries. The same was enacted for the public purpose of the improvement of agriculture, and financial condition of agriculturist by abolition and acquisition of rights of proprietors in the village, muhals, chak or blocks settled on Zamindari system which used to be a system of keeping an intermediary between the State and the tenants.

9. Section 3 of the Zamindari Abolition Act