Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
R.P. Gupta, J.
Laxman Rao
Vs.
State & one Anr.
S.A. No. 36 of 1993 (G)
Decided On: 12.12.1996
LAND REVENUE - Bhumiswami Rights - Pakka Tenant - Possession - Adverse Possession - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samwat 2007 (66 of 1950) - Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (20 of 1959) - Sections 54(vii), 158, 57, 257.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff-appellant, Laxman Rao, filed a suit for declaration of Bhumiswami rights over the disputed land and injunction against the defendant State and Mohammad Raza Khan from interfering with his possession. The plaintiff claimed to be a Maurusi of the land since before the coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samwat 2007 (1950). The State remained ex parte, while Mohammad Raza Khan admitted collecting building material on the land but denied knowledge of its ownership. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court affirmed the dismissal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff was recorded as Pukhta Maurusi in the revenue records from Samwat 2007 to 2020, indicating his possession of the land. The court held that the plaintiff became a Pakka Tenant under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950, and subsequently acquired Bhumiswami rights under section 158 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, when it came into force on 2nd October 1959. The court further held that the plaintiff's rights as Bhumiswami could not be taken away except in the manner provided by law and that the entries in the revenue record showing the State or P.W.D. as owners were meaningless.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff was a Pakka Tenant under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950, and subsequently acquired Bhumiswami rights under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959? 2. Whether the plaintiff's rights as Bhumiswami could be taken away by entries in the revenue record showing the State or P.W.D. as owners? 3. Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit in light of sections 57 and 257 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted section 54(vii) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950, and section 158 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, to hold that the plaintiff, being a Pukhta Maurusi in possession of the land, became a Pakka Tenant under the 1950 Act and subsequently acquired Bhumiswami rights under the 1959 Code. 2. The court held that the plaintiff's rights as Bhumiswami could not be taken away by entries in the revenue record showing the State or P.W.D. as owners, as such entries were meaningless in light of the plaintiff's legal rights acquired by operation of law. 3. The court interpreted sections 57 and 257 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, to hold that the present suit was not barred from being entertained by the civil court, as it did not fall within the categories of suits mentioned in section 257 and did not involve a claim for ownership of the land against the Government.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees of the trial court and first appellate court, and passed a decree in favor of the plaintiff declaring him as the Bhumiswami of the disputed land and restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession.
R.P. Gupta, J.
1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Third Additional District Judge. Gwalior on 15.1.93 in C.A. No. 14-R/92 whereby the first appellate Court had affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court i.e. Third Civil Judge Class-I, Gwalior dated 21.10.92 in C.S. No. 153-A/92. The trial Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and the first appellate Court has confirmed the dismissal of the suit.
2. Plaintiff appellant's suit is for declaration that he is Bhumiswami of the suit land and injunction against the defendant state not to build any park on this land and not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is entitled to correction in the revenue record by removal of the name of P.W.D.
3. Allegations of the plaintiff are that he is Maurusi of the land in dispute from the time since before coming into force of M.P. Land Revenue & Tenancy Act, Samwat 2007 i.e. 15.8.1950. The land was lying uncultivated but was in possession of the plaintiff. It was urged that the name of the defendant i.e. P.W.D. finds mention in column 3 of the revenue record (Khasra), but they have no right to interfere with the Bhumiswami or possessory rights of the plaintiff and their intention to build a park on this land is illegal.
4. There were two defendants. First is the State of M.P. and second Mohammad Raza Khan. Mohammad Raza was alleged to be attempting to built or run a cycle stand on this land.
5. The State of M.P. remained ex parte in spite of service of summons before the trial Court and defendants No. 2 Mohammad Raza Khan simply said that he had collected the building material on this land. He does not know to whom this land belongs.
6. In evidence, the plaintiff-appellant had produced copies of Khasra of Survey No. 3091 which is the disputed land. First one is Ex. P-1. Ex. P-1 was copy of Khsara pertaining to Samwat 2007, i.e. April, 1950 to March, 1951. In this, in column of possession Laxman Rao son of Pandurang Rao is recorded as Pukhla Maurusi, while the ownership column is occupied by P.W.D. Such entry continued upto Samvat 2008 also vide Ex. P-2. In Samvat 2009 (Ex. P-3), there was change in the entry. In the column of ownership, no name is recorded except the cross line but in the possessory column No. 5, name of P.W.D. is recorded as Pashorah No. 31", while the name of Laxman Rao, plaintiff is recorded as Pukhta Maurusi below the name of P.W.D. In the year Samvats 2007, 2008 and 2009, the land is recorded 'Kadim' to the extent of 2 Bighas 8 Biswas and that it has 'bungalow' also. In entries of Samvats 2010 to 2014 (in P 4) in the column of possession or tenant P.W.D. is recorded 'as before while the name of Laxman Rao is recorded as 'Pakka Krishak and land is recorded as 'Kadim' (2-13). This entry continued even in Khsara panchsala Samwats 2020 to 2024 (Ex. P-5). The land is continuing to be 'Padta Kadim'. Same entry had continued in Khasra for earlier two years i.e. Samwats 2014 to 2016 (Ex. P-6). Then in Khasra of Samwats 2026 to 2029 (Ex. P-7), name of the plaintiff is recorded as Kabjedar and Bhumiswami in the column of Kafiyat. In this column, Laxmano Rao along with his sons Vikram Bilasrao and Anil had been recorded, as if jointly holding possession. In this very period Samwats 2026 to 2029, it is mentioned that it is a "Nazul declared land". The area of land is given in Bighas as 2 Bigha 8 Biswas and also in hectares as 0.502 hectares. The land is continuously recorded as "Parti" during all these years, i.e. 2007 to 2034. Similar entries appear during the period Samwats 2031 to 2034 (Ex. P-8). However, in the Khasras of the periods 2037 to 2040, names of Laxman Rao. Vikram Singh, Vilasrao and Anil and sons of Laxman Rao are recorded as joint Bhumiswami. In column 3 pertaining to possessory right, wheat crops is recorded as produce of each of these years, Again in Khasra crops is recorded as prouce of each of these years. Again in Khasra p
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
