The present appeal (No. 46 of 1954) and the connected Appeals Nos. 48, 50 and 141 of 1954, were filed by the Plaintiffs of four different suits which were dismissed by the lower Court. All the appeals were jointly argued as they involve common questions of law and fact. This judgment shall dispose of all the appeals.

The subject-matter of the dispute consists of lands which belonged to the Appellants before the date of vesting under the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950, hereinafter called the Act. The lands in dispute in the present suit were recorded by the Compensation Officer under Section 13(1) of the Act as having vested in the State Government, and in the other suits the lands forming the subject-matter were likely to be so recorded. The Appellants, therefore, prayed for a declaration that the lands continue to belong to them and were not liable to vest in the State Government.

The relevant particulars of the lands in dispute, in brief, are as below:

F.A. No. 46 of 1954.-The Appellants were proprietors of village Narri, and of full share of Patti No. 4 and half share of Patti No. 3 of village Somalwara, tahsil Seoni-Malwa, district Hoshangabad. The lands mentioned in schedule A of the plaiut were held by tenants at the time of the last settlement and acquired by the Plaintiffs from them. They were subsequently recorded as Chhota ghas in the village papers. Schedule B contains lands which were continuously recorded as chhota ghas since the last settlement.

F.A. No. 48 of 1954.-The Appellant was proprietor of mauza Dhuli in tahsil and district Hoshangabad. The lands in dispute are shown in schedule A of the plaint, out of which some khasra numbers were recorded as khudkasht, and Ors. formed tenancy holdings, at the time of the last settlement. Subsequently the fields held by the tenants were acquired by the Plaintiff from them. All the lands were later recorded as chhota ghas in the village papers.

F.A. 50 of 1954.-The Appellant was proprietor of village Randhal in tahsi and district Hoshangabad. The land in dispute is khasra No. 23 which was recorded as khudkasht at the time of the last settlement and was later recorded as chhota ghas in the village papers.

F.A. No. 141 of 1954.-The Appellant was proprietor of patti No. 1/l of village Palasdih in tahsil and district Hoshangabad. All the lands have been recorded as chhota ghas in the village papers. Out of them, khasra No. 30/2 was tenancy land at the time of the last settlement and was acquired by the Appellant from the tenant by surrender. As regards khasra No. 28/3, his case was that it was under cultivation since the year 1949-50. This point, however, was not pressed before us. The Appellant's contention regarding khasra No. 15 that it was ploughed with a tractor before the date of vesting, which was denied by the State Government before the trial Court, was not challenged before us. This contention is borne out from the copy of the field-book of the Tractor Department, which shows that the field was ploughed on 26/27-3-1951. This document was filed before us and we admit it as additional evidence.

The case of the Appellants was that the lands were used for raising grass for fodder and for grazing. They should, therefore, be deemed to be under their cultivation, and as they were left fallow in accordance with agricultural practice, they constituted their khudkasht and consequently their home-farm within the meaning of the Act. In the suit out of which F.A. No. 141 of 1954 arises, it was also urged that the Act was ultra vires the Constitution in respect of Chhota ghas lands as it provides for the acquisition without payment of compensation, and that, in any case since the Act has only taken away the proprietary rights, the cultivating rights should continue to vest in the outgoing proprietors. It was also pleaded in that suit that khasra Nos. 28/3 and 15 were liable to be settled with the Plaintiff under Secti