1956 Supreme(Nagpur) 4

HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
Hidayatullah, K T Mangalmurti, G P Bhutt
BALKISHAN NATHANI AND ORS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS – Respondent
Miscellaneous Petition No. 22 of 1955
Decided on : 08-03-1956

The provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950, do not empower the Nistar Officer to reopen transactions which had taken place prior to the date mentioned in Section 6 of the Act or to question the transfers made by the outgoing proprietor prior to that date.

Headnote:

MADHYA PRADESH ABOLITION OF PROPRIETARY RIGHTS ACT - SECTION 3(2), 4(2), 6, 15(3), 40, 45, 47(1) - LAND REFORMS - TENANCY RIGHTS - TRANSFERS - JURISDICTION OF NISTAR OFFICER - REVIEW OF ANNUAL PAPERS - SUMMARY OF ACT AND SECTION REFERENCED AND DISCUSSED BY THE COURT.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, Seth Balkishan Nathani and his family members, were proprietors of certain lands in 'mouza' Sonpairi and 'Patti' No. 1 of 'mouza' Kachna. Prior to the coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Al(sic)enated Lands) Act, 1950 (No. I of 1051), Seth Balkishan Nathani executed perpetual 'pattas' in favor of his family members in respect of 'Khudkusht' and grass lands. These lands were recorded as their occupancy tenancy holdings in the annual papers. After the Act came into force, the Nistar Officer initiated proceedings for the correction of the annual papers on the basis of which the petitioners were treated as occupancy tenants of the lands.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Nistar Officer did not have the jurisdiction to start the proceedings for the correction of the annual papers as the transfers made by Seth Balkishan Nathani prior to the date mentioned in Section 6 of the Act were not affected under Section 3(2). The court also held that the action taken in favor of the transferees under Section 45, by which they were accepted as tenants of the State, was not liable to review under Section 15(3) and as the transfers could not be questioned under the Act, the proceedings taken by the Nistar Officer were without jurisdiction.

Issues: 1. Whether the state has the right to reopen transactions which had taken place prior to the date mentioned in Section 6, Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act? 2. What is the effect of Section 45, Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, on the continuity of the tenure of person already recorded an occupancy tenant? 3. Has the Nistar Officer power to reopen entries, made by the Deputy Commissioner, Land Reforms?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 3(2) of the Act provides that after the issue of a notification under Sub-section (1), no right shall be acquired in or over the land to which the said notification relates, except by succession or under a grant or contract in writing made or entered into by or on behalf of the State, and no fresh clearings for cultivation or for any other purpose shall be made in such land except in accordance with such rules as may be made by the State Government in that behalf. 2. Section 4(2) of the Act provides that an outgoing proprietor is entitled to retain possession of the land brought under cultivation by him after the year 1948-49 but before the date of vesting namely 31-3-1951. 3. Section 6 of the Act attaches a disability to transfers made by the outgoing proprietor after 16-3-1950. 4. Section 15(3) of the Act empowers the compensation Officer to decide the amount of compensation due to a claimant and record in a statement in the prescribed form, the details of the land which shall vest in the State Government lifter its acquisition in lieu of the payment of such compensation and such other details in connection therewith as may be prescribed. 5. Section 40 of the Act provides for the determination of the rent payable by an occupancy tenant. 6. Section 45 of the Act provides that every person who, immediately before the date of vesting, was a tenant of an outgoing proprietor shall, on and from such date, become a tenant of the State Government and shall hold the land on the same terms and conditions on which he held it immediately before such date.

Final Decision: The petitions were allowed with costs. The proceedings started by the Nistar Officer in the case of 'mouza' Sonpairi and the order, dated 9-12-1954, passed by him in the case of 'mouza' Kachna were quashed and he was prohibited from taking further proceedings which may affect the occupancy tenancy rights of the Petitioners in the lands in dispute.