SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1978 Supreme(MP) 95

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
A. P. Sen, C. J. and K. K. Dubey, J.
RAMANIWAS SINGH - Appellant
Versus
SHEOMANGAL PRASAD - Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal 9 Of 1971
Decided On : 05/06/1978

Advocates Appeared:
B.C.VERMA, R.P.PANDEY, S.S.JHA

Headnote:(1) Abolition of Jagirs and Land Reforms Act, 1952 (V.P.) - Ss. 6 (1) (g) and 28 -mortgagee with possession of Jagir lands - becomes a simple mortgagee - can recover mortgage money personally from mortgagor - mortgaged land cannot be allotted to him under section 28 - possession of usufructuary mortgagee becomes that of a rank trespasser.

       The Jagirdar mortgaged his land with possession. The mortgagor redeemed the mortgage and paid the mortgage money. After abolition of jagirs by virtue of section 6 (1) (g) of the Act mortgagee with possession become simple mortgagees. The mortgagee has no right to get land allotted under section 28. The mortgagee, therefore, is nothing but a rank trespasser. 1961 JLJ 836 relied on. [Para 13

       (2) Abolition of Jagirs and Land Reforms Act, 1952 (V.P.) - S. 22 (1) - expression 'which he was cultivating personally' - qualify both 'sir' and 'khudkasht' land. [Para 16

       (3) Abolition of Jagirs and Land Reforms Act, 1952 (V.P.) - S. 22 (1) - 'personal cultivation' - connotation of - cultivation by a mortgagee with possession - is personal cultivation of mortgagor.

       In case of mortgage with possession, which by virtue of section 6 (1) (g) of the Act, is substituted by a simple mortgage, the cultivation by the mortgagee in possession must, in law, be regarded as personal cultivation by the mortgagor [Para 18

       (4) Executive instructions - power of the State Government to issue - how far available.

       Where the Act is silent with respect to a matter, there is nothing wrong in the Government taking a policy decision in the matter. It is true that the Government cannot amend or supersede statutory Rules by administrative instructions, but if the rules are silent on any particular point Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already made. AIR 1967 SC 1910 relied on. [Para 18

       (5) Abolition of Jagirs and Land Reforms Act, 1957 (V.P.) - S. 2 (f) - if context otherwise requires Government may issue directions to supplement the definition of ‘personal cultivation’.

       It is true that the Government cannot by executive order, enlarge the meaning of the expression ‘land under personal cultivation’ as defined in section 2 (f) of the Act. Nevertheless, it the necessarily has the power to issue necessary direction in that behalf, if the expression ‘personal cultivation’ as defined in section 2 (f) cannot have that meaning in the context of an usufructuary mortgage, that is, if the context otherwise requires. 1971 RN 572 = 1970 JLJ 791 (SC) and 1971 RN 351 = 1971 JLJ 577 relied on. [Para 19

       (6) Abolition of Jagirs and Land Reforms Act, 1952 (V.P.) - S. 22 - allotment of land under-cannot be attacked by a plea in defence. [Para 24

       (7) Words and phrases - phrase 'personal cultivation' - cultivation by trespasser is cultivation by the real owner.

       Where the land is cultivated by a trespasser, in the eye of law it is 'personal cultivation' of the real owner. 1961 JLJ 780 and 1961 JLJ 1099 relied on. [Paras 18 & 24

A. P. SEN, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent by the plaintiff is directed against a judgment of Bishambhar Dayal, C. J. , dated 14-4-1971, affirming the judgment and decree of the 2nd Addl. District Judge, Satna, dated 11-11-1965, setting aside the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Class II, Satna, dated 17-4-1961, and dismissing the plaintiff's suit based on title for possession, of sir lands bearing khasra No. 332, area 11-64 acres, and khasra No. 551, area 0. 60 acre, total area 12. 24 acres, situate in village Dengrahat.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff, Lal Rangnath Singh was the ex-Jagirdar of Dengrahat in the erstwhile State of Vindhya Pradesh. He created a usufructuary mortgage of the suit lands by executing a registered mortgage-deed, dated 10-5-1951, in favour of the defendant, Sheo Mangal Prasad, to secure a loan of Rs. 1. 800. The Jagir was resumed by the then State Government of Vindhya Pradesh under the provisions of the Vindhya Pradesh Abolition of Jagirs and Land Reforms Act, 1952, w. e. f 1-1-1954. By virtue of Section 6 (1) (a) of the Act, as from the date of resumption, the right, title and interest of the plaintiff in the Jagir lands stood resumed to the State Government free from all encumbrances. Under Clause (g) thereof, the usufructuary mortgage was substituted by a simple mortgage and the defendant who was a mortgagee in possession ceased to have any right to possess the land. On 6-4-1958, the defendant consequently brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,074 on the basis of the registered mortgage-deed, being the amount due towards the principal amount and interest thereon. While this suit was pending, the plaintiff on 2-8-1958 made an application for allotment of the disputed sir lands under Section 22 of the Act.

( 3 ) THE State Government in the Land Reforms Department by its order, dated 3-4-1958. issued the following direction:

"govt. OF MADHYA PRADESH land REFORMS DEPARTMENT no. 2086/28/xxviii-58 Bhopal, dated 3-4-58, to the Director of Land Reforms, madhya Pradesh, Rewa. Subject:-- Settlement of mortgaged Jagir land in the possession of mortgagee. Ref:-- Your Memo No. 964/62 dated the , 25th May. 57. Under Section 6 (g) (i) of the Vindhya Pradesh Abolition of Jagirs and land Reforms Act. 1952, a mortgagee in possession of a Jagir, such land or part thereof ceases to have any right to possess such land or part thereof, and such mortgage with possession shall to the extent of the amount of security on the Jagir land and part thereof be deemed to have been substituted by simple mortgage. Government have decided that the said land should be settled with the Jagirdar as if it was under his cultivation. By order of the Governor Madhya Pradesh Sd/- M. P. Singh, under Secretary to Govt. M. P. Land Reforms Deptt. Bhopal. "

( 4 ) PURSUANT to the orders of the Government, the Tahsildar. Raghuraj Nagar, by his order dated 28-4-1958 allotted the sir lands to the plaintiff. In appeal, the collector, Satna. by his order dated 30-3-1959, upheld the order of allotment. Thereupon, on 18-7-1959 the defendant moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of allotment being Miscellaneous Petition no. 159 of 1959, Sheo Mangal Prasad v. Lal Rang Nath Singh. The allotment was challenged on the ground that the plaintiff not being in personal cultivation of the disputed lands on the date of resumption of Jagir, i. e. , on 1-1-1954, within the meaning of the expression 'personal cultivation' as defined in Section 2 (f), he could not derive any right of allotment under Section 22 of the Act. The order of allotment was also assailed on the ground that the Government could not by its order override the provisions of Section 22 nor could the government in the guise of interpretation provide that cultivation by a usufructuary mortgagee should be deemed to be personal cultivation by the jagirdar. It was, therefore, urged that the Government order was a nullity in all respects and,



































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top