1980 Supreme(MP) 547

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.G. Sohani, K.N. Shukla, JJ.
Kashinath – Petitioner
Versus
Vitthal Maru – Respondent
M. P. No. 396 of 1978 (I)
Decided On : 21-08-1980

Headnote:(1) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M. P.) – S. 189 – resumption of land from occupancy tenant – when may be claimed – petitioner already possessing 25 acres of land – effect.

       (2) Constitution of India – Art – 226 – writ of certiorari – issuance of – finding neither perverse nor against law – interference not made.

        Short Note

       1. Brief facts are as follows:

       Petitioners had filed an application under section 189 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 against respondent No. 1 for resumption of land bearing survey No. 19, area 18.89 acres situated in village Cangnara, Tahsil Barwani. It was alleged in that application that the petitioners had less than 25 acres of land in their possession whereas respondent No, 1 who was their occupancy tenant hold more than 25 acres of land. Respondent No.1 in that proceeding had contended that he was a permanent tenant and not an occupancy tenant and had become a Bhumiswami in view of certain resolutions passed by the erstwhile Barwani State.

       2. The application under section 189 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code was dismissed by the Sub – Divisional Officer vide order Annexure 6. Appeals to the Collector and Commissioner were also dismissed and finally a revision petition was filed before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue dismissed the revision vide order Annexure – 9.

       3. In the petition the main ground for impugning the order of the Board of Revenue was that the Board of Revenue erred in holding that respondent No. 1 was not a mere occupancy tenant and, therefore, could not be evicted under the provisions of section 189 of the Code. According to the petitioners resolution marked as Annexures 1 to 5 of Barwani State were erroneously interpreted by the Board of Revenue.

       Held : Return has bean filed on behalf of respondent No.1 only. The very first ground taken as a preliminary ground in the return is that the petitioners are in possession of 25 acres of land and cannot, therefore, invoke the provisions of section 189 of the Code. On merits also it was pleaded that in view of the resolutions passed by the Barwani State respondent No.1 had acquired the status of a permanent tenant and in course of time he became a Bhumiswami himself.

       4. After hearing counsel, we, have come to the conclusion that in view of the findings of fact recorded by the Board of Revenue and not specifically challenged in the writ petition as perverse, the petitioners have no case whatsoever. Relevant portion in paragraph 5 of the impugned order is as follows : –

       "But there is a concurrent finding of facts by the trial Court and the first appellate Court that the petitioners had in their possession for personal cultivation more than 25 acres."

       5. In view of this clear finding of fact, the authorities below (respondents 2 to 5) did not commit any error of law in dismissing the claim of the petitioners for resumption of lands in question. It is not necessary to refer to other grounds raised in the petition and the return. Petition dismissed.