Back
1999 Supreme(MP) 543
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)
S.S. Jha, J.
Ram Babu Singh and Ors.
Vs.
State of M.P.
Second Appeal No. 283/95
Decided On: 10.08.1999
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: A.K. Shrivastava, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: K.N. Gupta, Govt. Adv.
The rights of ex-proprietors over private wells, trees, buildings, house sites, and enclosures under Section 5 of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act are subject to the conditions and requirements specified in the Act, including the requirement that the lands be recorded as Khudkasht lands.
Headnote:
MADHYA BHARAT ZAMINDARI ABOLITION ACT - SECTION 5, 4(2) - RIGHTS OF EX-PROPRIETOR OVER PRIVATE WELLS, TREES, BUILDINGS, HOUSE SITES, AND ENCLOSURES - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 4(2) TO CLAIMS UNDER SECTION 5 - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS - PROTECTION OF RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 5 - CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs, ex-zamindars, claimed title over disputed lands under Section 5 of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, alleging possession of open enclosures, house sites, buildings, wells, and trees. The trial court dismissed their suit, holding that the lands vested in the State under Section 4 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove their rights under Section 5 of the Act. The lands were not recorded as their Khudkasht lands, and they did not acquire any right under Section 4(2) of the Act. The courts below did not err in dismissing the suit.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs' rights were protected over the disputed property under Section 5 of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act? 2. Whether the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act are applicable to the claim put by the plaintiffs in the suit? 3. Whether the two Courts below had correctly applied the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act in dismissing the plaintiffs' suit? 4. Whether the refusal to grant perpetual injunction was against the established facts and provisions of law?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 5 of the Act protects the rights of ex-proprietors over private wells, trees, buildings, house sites, and enclosures. However, the plaintiffs failed to prove that the disputed lands were recorded as their Khudkasht lands, a condition for protection under Section 5. 2. Section 4(2) of the Act allows ex-proprietors to retain possession of certain lands if they were in continuous possession for 12 years before the abolition of zamindari. The plaintiffs failed to prove that they were in continuous possession of the disputed lands for the required period. 3. The courts below correctly applied the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Act in dismissing the plaintiffs' suit since they failed to prove their rights under Section 5 or Section 4(2) of the Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
S.S. Jha, J.
1. This appeal is admitted on following substantial questions of law :-
"(1) Whether the right, title and possession of the plaintiff-appellants were protected over the disputed property under Section 5 of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act?
(2) Whether the provisions of Section 4 (2) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act are applicable to the claim put by the plaintiff in the suit?
(3) Whether the two Courts below had correctly applied the provisions of Section 4 (2) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act in dismissing the plaintiffs suit ?
(4) Whether the refusal to grant perpetual injunction was against the established facts and provisions of law ?"
2. I proceed to deal with first question of law. First question of law relates whether the rights of appellants were protected over the suit lands under Section 5 of Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Section 5 of the Act is reproduced below :--
"5. Private wells, trees, buildings, house sites, and enclosures.--
(a) All open enclosures used for agricultural or domestic purposes and in continuous possession (which includes possession of a former proprietor) for twelve years immediately before the 1st of January, 1951, all open house sites purchased for consideration, all buildings, places of worship, wells, situated in and trees standing on lands included in such enclosures of house-sites or land appertaining to such buildings or places of worships within the limits of a village-site belonging to or held by the outgoing proprietor or any other person shall continue to belong or to be held by such proprietor or other person as the case may be, and the land thereof, with the areas appurtenant thereto shall be settled with him by the Government on such terms and conditions as it may determine.
(b) All private wells and buildings on occupied land belonging to or held by the outgoing proprietor or any other person shall continue to belong to or be held by such proprietor or other person.
(c) All trees standing on land comprised in a Khudkasht or homestead and belonging to or held by the outgoing proprietor or any other person shall continue to belong to or be held by such proprietor or other person.
(d) All trees standing on occupied land other than lands comprised in Khudkasht or home-stead and belonging to or held by a person other than the outgoing proprietor shall continue to belong to or be held by such person.
(e) All tanks situate on occupied land and belonging to or held by the outgoing proprietor or any other person shall continue to belong to or be held by such proprietor or other person.
(f) All groves wherever situate and recorded in village papers in the name of the outgoing proprietor or any other person shall continue to belong to or be held by such proprietor or such other person and the land under such grove shall be settled with such proprietor or such other person by the Government on such terms and conditions as it may determine."
Learned counsel for the appellants banks his case on Section 5 (b), (c), (d) and (f) of the Act to claim his title.
3. The plaintiffs have filed a suit specifically claiming therein that the plaintiffs are ex-zamindar. The father of plaintiffs died in Samvat 2006. They are in occuption of zamindari land under the guardianship of their mother. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit lands pleaded in para 3 of the plaint are in possession of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs acquired rights of Pucca Krishak on the abolition of Zamindari Act. The plaintiffs claimed that survey Nos. 1702, 52/2 and 4/2 in Samvat 2006 have been renumbered as survey Nos. 18 and 73, respectively, and these lands have been recorded in the name of mother of plaintiff No. 2. It was pleaded that in survey No. 96 there exists a private well and fruit-bearing trees. Learned counsel pleaded that since fruit-bearing trees and well is existing on the land, the plaintiffs have acquired rights over the property
