The plaintiffs' possession and acquisition of rights were upheld, and the suit was found not time-barred, establishing the applicability of Section 11(5) and Section 46 of the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960.

A.K. Shrivastava, J.

1. This second appeal has been filed at the instance of defendant/State against the reversing judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court decreeing the suit of plaintiffs/respondents.

2. Plaintiffs No.2 to 5 are the sons of Plaintiff No. 1 Ram Charan, son of Hameer Singh. The case of the plaintiffs is that on the suit property which is agricultural land and the description whereof has been mentioned in the plaint is being possessed by them for the last 40 years from the date of the filing of the suit. Earlier the father of the plaintiff no. 1 Ram Charan was possessing the suit property. In order to get the names of plaintiffs recorded in the revenue record, defendant no.2 Motilal executed a registered sale deed on 09.09.1971 in favour of plaintiffs but the Collector/Competent authority by holding that the transaction was in between 01.01.1971 and 07.03.1974 held the same to be illegal and void and was in contravention of the provisions of the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (in short, the Act). The order of Collector was assailed before the Commissioner who vide its order dated 15.6.1976 remanded the matter to the competent authority to compute the land in excess in accordance with the choice of holder. The Collector/ competent authority again decided the matter by passing the same order which was passed by him earlier against which again an appeal was filed on 21.4.1982 before Commissioner which was dismissed against which the plaintiffs filed revision application before the Board of Revenue and the same was dismissed in default on 9.3.1983.

3. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the holder of the land (defendant no.2-Motilal) alienated the suit property prior to coming into force of the amended Act and the alienation was not in contravention to the provisions which were prevailing on the date of the alienation i.e. 9.9.1971. Under the un-amended Act which was in force during the period of alienation, the holder was entitled to retain 75 acres of land and at that juncture the holder (defendant no.2-Motilal) was having only 63 acres of land and, therefore, it was not necessary for the Collector to declare the suit land as surplus.

4. Further, it has been pleaded by the plaintiffs that the entitlement of the family members of the holder (defendant no.2-Motilal) which has been computed by the Collector/competent authority has been wrongly computed in contravention to Section 7 of the Act and held that second wife of the holder-Motilal as well as his mother were not entitled to hold separate land although both of them were entitled under the said provision.

5. By amending the plaint, it has been specifically pleaded by the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs were possessing the suit property in their independent right of Bhumiswami. According to the plaintiffs, without holding any enquiry under Section 4(1) of the Act, the competent authority had passed the order on 8.12.1975. The order of the competent authority is null and void and is also contrary to the provisions of the Act. Hence on these pleadings, it has been prayed by the plaintiffs that the order of competent authority dated 8.12.1975 and 11.7.1977 be declared null and void and it be further declared that the plaintiffs are the Bhumiswamis having possession on the suit property and defendants be restrained from interfering in their possession.

6. The State Government who was arrayed as defendant no. 1 filed the written statement denying the plaint averments by pleading that the impugned transaction of sale dated 09.09.1971 has been made in order to defeat the provisions of the Act and the impugned transaction is in contravention to Section 5 of the Act.

7. Despite the plaintiffs amended their plaint by raising legal objection that the order of the Collector is null and void since it is in contravention to Section 7 and 4(1) of the Act because the entitlement of the mother of the holder and his second wife was not taken