IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (INDORE BENCH)
VIVEK RUSIA, J.
ABDE ALI AND OTHERS - Appellants
Vs.
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS - Respondents
First Appeal No. 174 of 1999
Decided On : 06-08-2018
ownership - land dispute - Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951(13 of 1951) - MPLRC - Section 39, 172, 181 - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking declaration of ownership of lands and challenged the decision treating them as encroachers. The lands were initially owned by an Industrial Mill Company and later purchased by Seth Onkarmal. The plaintiffs claimed ownership based on their ancestors' possession and application for fresh lease.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lands were granted for industrial purposes and the plaintiffs failed to prove their ownership. The court upheld the rejection of the plaintiffs' application for fresh lease and the possession taken by the revenue authorities.
Issues: The issues included the ownership of the lands, the application of Zamindari Abolition Act, and the rejection of the plaintiffs' application for fresh lease.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs failed to apply for lease within the stipulated period, thus losing their rights under the Zamindari Abolition Act. The lands were granted for industrial purposes, and the plaintiffs could not prove their ownership based on their ancestors' possession.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court.
Vivek Rusia, J.
The appellants/plaintiffs have filed the present appeal being aggrieved by judgement and decree dated 26.3.1999 passed by Sixth Additional District Judge, Ujjain, by which, Civil Suit no.39-A/1991 has been dismissed.
2. The plaintiffs filed the civil suit seeking the relief of declaration of ownership of lands having area 8 Bighas' and 1 Biswa' called as "Category 1 lands" and lands having area 10 Bighas' and 16 Biswa' called as "Category 3 lands" (both category of the lands are here in after referred as 'Suit lands') situated in the Municipal area of Ujjain and also challenged the decision of the respondents/defendants by which they were treated as encroacher as void and illegal.
3. As per pleadings in the plaint, there was Industrial Mill Company Ltd Ujjain over lands bearing Survey No.3766 area 4 Bighas and 5 Biswas and lands bearing Survey No.3654/1 area 3 Bighas 15 Biswa at Ujjain. The said company took a loan from Gwalior Trust. In order to recover the loan amount, the said Industrial Mill Company Ltd Ujjain along with the lands Category 1 was put into auction on 8.2.1930 and in the auction proceedings; Seth Onkarmal purchased the same and he was placed into his possession on 16.7.1930. He started the Mill in the name of The Seth Onkalmal Flour Mill. Later on, Seth Onkarmal Ji entered into partnership firm with Seth Fida Hussain Sandalwale and also changed the name of the company Mill/Factory as "Sandalwale Flour and Oil Mill". Thereafter, Fida Hussain left the partnership firm and Abdul Hussain became the exclusive sole proprietor of firm accident and also named the factory as "Sunrising and Oil Mill". He remained as the owner thereof till 24.7.1961. In the year 1961, there was a fire accident in the factory, because of which, the production was stopped. Abdul Hussain died on 28.12.1968 and thereafter, the plaintiffs being the legal representatives became the owner of suit property. The Category 3 lands was given to the ancestors of the plaintiff for the use of factory and agricultural purposes and they used the same for agricultural purposes since them.
4. The lands comprising in Survey Nos. 3754/1, 3754/8, 3754/3, 3754/10 and 3754/12 area 8 Bighas 14 and 14 Biswa (hereinafter, referred to as "Category 2 lands") is also situated in municipal area of Ujjain and same was purchased by the ancestors of the plaintiff from Chhotelal Prabhulal as agricultural lands. The Collector vide order dated 2.12.1970 had recorded the finding that the plaintiffs are owners of the said lands and later on the same was mutated in their name. The plaintiffs had sold the same on 14.10.1985 to Lokmanya Tilak Sanskratik Nyas, Neelganga, Ujjain, hence there is no dispute about the ownership of the said lands in the suit. Hence, the plaintiff claimed the relief of declaration of title for Category 1 lands and Category 3 i.e. suit lands only. The various survey numbers of suit lands are mention in memo of the plaint
5. The cause of action for this exordium arose on 1.9.1961 when Tehsildar, Ujjain disputed the ownership of the plaintiff over the 'Suit lands' by treating them as an encroacher and issued notice u/s. 248 of M.P. Lands Revenue Code (MPLRC). Later on, the said notice was cancelled and in Case No.2/61/59 another notice dated 23.6.1961 was issued u/s. 181 and 172 of MPLRC read with Section 39 of The Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951(13 of 1951) (hereinafter, for short, Zamindari Abolition Act). The enquiry was initiated before the Tehsildar and meanwhile, Late Abdul Hussain submitted two applications dated 4.8.1963 and 26.12.1963 respectively before the Collector for allotment of Category 1 to 3 lands on fresh Special lease. The Collector, Ujjain vide order dated 2.12.1070 recorded the findings that the Category 2 lands was purchased by Abdul Hussain hence he is entitled for mutation in his name. In respect of 'suit lands', the Collector held that after abolition of 'Zamindari' system, after Zamindari
Narayan Prasad Agrawal V/s. State of M.P.
Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. V/s. Anil Gupta
State of M.P. & others V/s. Radhika Prasad
Sebastiao Luis Fernandes (Dead) Through L.Rs. & Ors. V/s. K.V.P. Shastri (Dead) Through L.Rs. & Ors.
Chief Executive Officer V/s. Surendra
Gurudwara Sahib V/s. Gram Panchayat
Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority V/s. Shiv Saraswati Iron & Steel ReRolling Mills
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.