IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.
State of Madhya Pradesh Through The Collector Durg (now Chhattisgarh) – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Jhamman Chandrakar W/o Late Shri Nand Kumar & Ors. – Appellants
FA No. 102 of 1993, FA No. 184 of 1992
Decided On : 18-05-2018
Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 - M.P. Land Revenue Code 1959 - Section 251 - MP Land Revenue Code 1954 - Section 225 (5) - State ownership in all lands - Question of title - Determination of Compensation - Appointment of Compensation Officer - Vesting of proprietary rights in State - Suit has been decreed and it has been declared that plaintiffs/respondents are owners and title holders of tank situated in khasra in Village and further held entitled to recover vacant possession of two tanks and their embankments - Trial Court has also granted a decree for payment of compensation of Rs.8,000 - Learned trial Court has also granted a decree in favour of plaintiffs/respondents and against appellants/State & Panchayat for payment of compensation in respect of period after filing of suit to tune of Rs.1,48,000/-. Learned trial Court has also granted decree to effect that appellants/defendants shall pay Rs.20,000/- per year to plaintiffs/respondents till handing over of possession along with cost of suit - Held, Thus vesting is not automatic but only upon enquiry after affording opportunity of hearing and an order or entry to that effect made in revenue records - Furthermore, it has to be noted that in the present case, tanks were situated in occupied land and not in unoccupied land - This would be clear from definition of occupied land as defined under clause- (k) of Section (2) of Act of 1950 which reads as under - In view of finding recorded by this Court on basis of material evidence on record that on date of coming into force Act of 1950, Toran and Ors were holding the two tanks in malik makbuja, it was to be treated only as an occupied land - In this regard, definition of unoccupied land as contained in clause (22) of Section (2) of Act 1954 is also relevant and extracted below - As Toran and Ors, were enjoying malik makbuja rights on date of coming into force of Code of 1954, as has been held herein-above, they became tenure holder under Section 145 of Code of 1954 which details were duly recognized also by orders of Revenue authority which was passed by Deputy Additional Commissioner and had attained finality - Decision of Full Bench is distinguishable on facts in present case - Appeals dismissed.
1. The aforesaid two appeals are being decided by this common order as both the appeals arise out of judgment and decree dated 8th May 1992 passed by learned First Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Durg, in Civil Suit No.33A/83, whereby the plaintiffs'/respondents' suit has been decreed and it has been declared that the plaintiffs/respondents are owners and title holders of tank situated in khasra Nos.1013, 1023 & 1017 (old khasra no.81) admeasuring 5.36 acres and tank situated in khasra Nos.1048, 1049 (old khasra no.142) admeasuring 17 acres situated in Village-Chandrakhuri in P.H. No.73, Tehsil and district -Durg and further held entitled to recover vacant possession of the two tanks and their embankments. The trial Court has also granted a decree for payment of compensation of Rs.8,000/-. The learned trial Court has also granted a decree in favour of plaintiffs/respondents and against the appellants/State & Panchayat for payment of compensation in respect of the period after filing of the suit to the tune of Rs.1,48,000/-. Learned trial Court has also granted decree to the effect that the appellants/defendants shall pay Rs.20,000/- per year to the plaintiffs/respondents till handing over of possession along with cost of the suit.
2. The plaintiffs/respondents who are successors in interest of Toran Lal, Bhav Singh and Hemnath filed a suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction in respect of the tanks in dispute on the pleadings that their forefathers Toran Lal, Bhav Singh & Hemnath were the owners of the two tanks situated in khasra no.81 and khasra No.142 of Village-Chandrakhuri which was constructed by their forefathers a hundred years before and since then they have remained in continuous possession of the same. As pleaded in the plaint, the two tanks were settled in favour of late Toran Lal S/o Hannu, Bhav Singh S/o Umendi and Hemnath S/o Nandu in the settlement of 1929-30. Further pleading was that the aforesaid two tanks and their embankments were recorded in malik makbuja rights of plaintiffs' three ancestors namely Nandu, Hannu and Bhavsingh in the settlement records of 1910-11 under old khasra and those ancestors were in possession of tanks and embankments. Further pleading in the plaint was that Toran Lal, Bhav Singh and Hemnath used to grow and yield rice and other water crops like betels and also rear fish. After death of Toran Lal, Bhav Singh and Hemnath, their successors/plaintiffs remained in cultivating possession of the tanks and embankments along with trees and orchids. In the year 1908, the then Malgujar (Ex-proprietor) Reva Sai, S/o Devdhar had accepted the title of Hannu and Nandu in ' malik makbuja rights' and entered into an agreement for irrigation of his own lands from these tanks vide registered agreement dated 12.10.1908. Later on, Reva Sai filed a suit for correction of missal bandobast records of 1929-30 and for recording his own name along with Toran, Bhavsingh and Hemnath, which was denied by Hemnath and others and a compromise decree was finally passed on 14.3.1932 declaring title of Hemnath, Bhav Singh and Toran in respect of tanks admeasuring 5.36 acres situated in kh. No.81 area 5.36 acres and kh. No.142 area 17 acres. Though under certain conditions, Reva Sai was granted a facility of irrigating his own agricultural land and in this manner settlement entries of 1929-30 were maintained in favour of Hemnath, Bhav Singh and Toran in respect of the aforesaid two tanks, later on, Reva Sai sold his land to others and as the agricultural activity on those lands of Reva Sai was stopped, no irrigation facility was being provided from the two tanks and the water of the two tanks was being used for irrigating the lands of Hemnath, Bhav Singh and Toran Lal. The plaintiffs further pleaded that their ancestors were not proprietors ( malgujar) but were Kastkar (cultivators). Upon promulgation of Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Aliena
Chhotabhai Jethabai Patel and Co. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Devarapu Narasimharao Vs. Yerrabothula Peda Venkaiah and Ors.
Jonnala Sura Reddy and Anr.Vs. Tityyagura Srinivasa Reddy and Ors.
Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes & Ors. Vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (dead) through LRs.
Mulamchand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Raghubar Singh Padumlal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Raghubirprasad Gour and Ors. Vs. State of M.P. and Anr.
Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari (deceased) by LRs.
Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P. Gwalior & Ors.
Smt. Rewati w/o Bhukan Vs. Smt. Gouribai, w/o Bhuneshwar & Ors.
State Bank of India & Anr. Vs. M/s. Emmsons International Ltd. & Anr.
State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Balkishan Nathani & Ors.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Yakinuddin
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dahyabhai Khushalbhai Patel & Ors.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Atma Ram Sadashiv Dongarwar and Ors.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.