The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 5(1)(f) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act and the determination of the ownership of grove-lands.

T.S. Doabia, J.

Shri P. D. Agarwal, Panel Lawyer for State/appellant.

Shri R. D. Jain, Advocate for the respondents.

1. Heard counsel.

On the strength of the decision given by the Supreme Court of India in the case reported as Chandrojirao Angre v. State of M. P., 1968 MPLJ 279 (SC), 1968 RN 270, the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondents seeks to sustain the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below.

2. The facts in brief are as under :

The dispute in this appeal is with regard to survey numbers 124 and 125 of village Pratappura, tehsil Mehgaon, dist. Bhind. These are shown in column No. 6 under the ownership of one Zamindar, Ramkran. Against these survey numbers entry shown to be is 'grove-lands'. Neem and Mango trees standing on these two survey numbers. A well is also located.

2.A. It is on the basis of this, the relevant record of samvat 2007, which is exhibit P/7, is sought to be examined. Earlier to this, in samvat 1999, the nature of the land remains the same. Against these two survey numbers entry made is the same as in samvat 2007 i.e., Neem and Mango trees are shown to be standing on this land.

3. It is on the basis of the above, it is argued that the land would not vest in the State in terms of Section 5(1)(f) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, Samvat 2008. This section reads as under :

"5. Private wells, trees, buildings, house-sites and enclosures. - *** *** ***

(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."

4. When the aforementioned provisions are read in the light of the judgment referred to above in the beginning of this judgment, then it becomes obvious that the grove-lands were not to vest in the State. No doubt, the aforementioned judgment Chandrojirao's case (supra) was given under a different statute, namely. Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act, 2008, but the observations made in paras 3, 4 and 5, would apply to this case. The Supreme Court of India in para 5 took note of earlier decisions given by various High Courts. These decisions are as under :

(i) Daropadi v. Mannulal, AIR 1929 All. 557; (ii) Kashi v. Jagoobai, AIR 1984 All. 200; (iii) Shivsahai v. Harnandan, AIR 1963 All. 413 and (iv) Hasan v. State of Bombay, (62) 1960 BLR 617.

After taking note of the aforementioned decisions, following observations were made in para 6 :

"It would seem therefore that the word "grove", conveys compactness or at any rate substantial compactness to be recognised as a unit by itself which must consist of a group of trees in sufficient number to preclude the land on which they stand from being primarily used for a purpose, such as cultivation, other than as a grove- land. The language of Section 5(b)(iv) does not require however that the trees need be fruit-bearing trees nor does it require that they should have been planted by human labour or agency. But they must be sufficient in number and so standing in a group as to give them the character of a grove and to retain that character the trees would or when fully grown preclude the land on which they stand from being primarily used for a purpose other than that of a grove-land. Cultivation of a patch here and a patch there would have no significance to deprive it of its character as a grove. Therefore, trees standing in a file on the road side intended to furnish shade to the road would not fulfil the requirement of a grove even as understood in ordinary parlance."

5. To the same effect are the observations made by this Court in the case reported as State of M. P. v. D. K. Jadhav (Sardar) and Narain Datta Mishra, 1968 RN 501.

6. In this view of the matter, the land situated in the aforementioned disputed survey numbers would fall under grov