Back
1967 Supreme(MP) 21
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. V. Dixit, C. J. and R. J. Bhave, J.
KHUSHILAL - Appellant
Versus
BOARD OF REVENUE MADHYA PRADESH - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 26 Of 1966
Decided On : 02/03/1967
K.L.ISSRANI, M.C.NIHALANI, Y.S.DHARMADHIKARI
Headnote:(1) Land Revenue Act, 1932 (Bhopal State)-Ss. 2(15), 2(5) & 52(2)-Muafidars in Bhopal State-were' occupants' as defined in the Act.
A Muafidar must be included in the latter part of the definition of an 'occupant' given in section 2(15) of the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932. In defining the term 'occupant' the language used is some what involved. But on a proper interpretation of the definition it would appear that it includes persons of two categories, namely, (i) those who directly hold land from the Government with a liability to pay land revenue and (ii) those who hold land in the State but in whose case the right of collecting land revenue has been assigned or relinquished, The only case in which assignment or relinquishment is made are those covered under section 2(5). If the two definitions, namely, the definition of 'alienated land' and that of an 'occupant' are read together alongwith the provisions of the Act, no doubt is left that a Maufidar is included in the definition of 'occupant'. [Para 4
Section 52 (2) includes in the definition of 'occupant' all those persons who held land as Maufidars. 1966 RN 545 Reversed. [Para 5
(2) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M. P.) - Ss.158, 185 (1) (IV) (b) & 190-interpretation of-Muafidars become Bhumiswamis under section 158 Shikmi holding land from a Muafidar holds land from an Occupant-becomes a Bhumiswami under section 190 of the Code.
(3) Interpretation of Statutes-words used in a statute-widest possible interpretation-when may be given.
The definition of an 'Occupant' is wide enough to include every person who holds land directly from the Government subject to payment of land revenue or a person who, but for relinquishment of such right by the Government, would have held land from the Government. A Muafidar would obviously be a person who would have been made liable to pay land revenue but for the relinquishment of such right by the Government and he is included in the definition of an 'Occupant'.
It is an accepted principle of interpretation of statutes that the widest possible interpretation should be put on the words used in a statute unless the context otherwise directs.
The Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, recognises only one type of tenure-holders, namely, that of Bhumiswamis. All those persons who were holding land from the Government under the various Land Revenue and Tenancy Laws operative in the different parts of the State were brought on par under the present Code and were conferred the status of Bhumiswamis under section 158 of the Code. Under that section Bhumiswami rights have been conferred on the 'Occupants' from Bhopal area as defined in the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932 It would appear illogical to assume that the Legislature conferred Bhumiswami rights on the holders of land, excepting the Muafldars, when Muafidars from other regions were made tenure-holders. The context of the Act thus requires that the definition of an 'Occupant' should be interpreted liberally so as to include a Muafidar also. 1966 RN 545 Reversed. [Para 6
(4) Interpretation of Statutes-words used in any enactment-Principles of interpretation -definition in other Acts when should not be applied.
It is a settled principle of interpretation of statutes that the expressions used in a statute should be interpreted on the plain language used by the Legislature or, at best, subject to other provisions in the same statute; and a reference to another statute enacted for a different purpose is wholly inappropriate. [Para 7
( 1 ) THE respondent No. 5 held Khasra Nos. 948, 950 and 951 (area 31. 16 acres)situate at Pul Bogda, Bhopal, as a Muafidar in the erstwhile State of Bhopal. The petitioner was a sub-tenant (a Shikmi) of the respondent No. 5 in respect of the above said land. The petitioner's case is that under the Bhopal State Land Revenue act, 1932, the respondent No. 5 was the 'occupant' of the said land, of which the petitioner was a Shikmi, and hence under Section 185 of the Madhya Pradesh Land revenue Code, 1959, he became an 'occupancy tenant' of the land and under section 190 of the said Code he acquired Bhumiswami rights. The petitioner, therefore, applied before the Tahsil-dar, Huzur, by an application under Section 109 read with S- 190 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code for mutation of his name as a Bhumiswami by an order dated 24th June 1963 the Tahsildar held that the Bhumiswami rights accrued to the petitioner and directed him to deposit compensation equivalent to 15-times of the Land Revenue, on the payment of which he was to he recorded as a Bhumiswami of the holding. The order of the Tahsildar was affirmed, in appeal, by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Huzur, Bhopal, as well as by the Additional commissioner, Bhopal Division But the Board of Revenue held that the respondent no. 5, being a Muafidar, could not be regarded as an 'occupant' within the meaning of Section 2 (15) of the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932, and consequently the petitioner did not become an 'occupancy tenant' on coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. In this view of the matter the board held that the petitioner could not acquire the status of a Bhumiswami under section 190 of the Code. The order of the Board of Revenue dated 6th July 1965 has been challenged by the petitioner before us under Article 226 of the constitution.
( 2 ) IN the present case, it is an admitted position that the petitioner held the land from the respondent No. 5, who was a Muafidar. If a 'muafidar' is included in the definition of an 'occupant', it is conceded by the respondent No. 5 that the petitioner would become an occupancy tenant under Section 185 of the Madhya pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The contention, however, is that Muafidars and occupants belong to two different categories and their status is different and that they are treated differently under the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932, and that a Muafidar cannot be included in the definition of an 'occupant', even if the definition of 'occupant' as given in that Act is widely interpreted. The Board of revenue has expressed this view in the following words: "the Additional Commissioner has held the applicant (respondent No. 5), although admittedly a muafidar, to be an occupant as he was holding land direct from Government or would do so but for the right of collecting land revenue having been relinquished in his favour I am afraid I cannot agree with the Additional Commissioner in this view of the matter. In the first place if it were intended that there should he no difference or distinction in status between the occupant and a muafidar, there would have been no need for giving a separate definition for the term 'muafidar' in the same Act. In Section 2 (5) of the Act a muafidar has been separately defined as the holder of alienated land in whose favour the land revenue is relinquished by the Government. Besides, the rights and liabilities of the two classes of land holders at provided for in the Act, are also materially different and point unmistakably to fee fact that they were not intended to be synonymous. An occupant is a tenant of the Government, while a Muafidar is the holder of alienated land. " the Board also supported the above said conclusion by referring to the definition of an 'occupant' as given in the Bhopal State Sub-Tenants (Of Occupants)Protection Act, 1954. In that Act, in the definition of an 'occupant' a Muafidar has also been included. The reasoning is th
