Occupancy tenants' rights must account for the entirety of jointly held land in resumption applications under the M.P. Land Revenue Code, ensuring equitable treatment under tenancy laws.

1. This judgment shall also dispose of L.P.A. No. 13 / 80 preferred by the present respondents.

2. The two appeals have arisen out of the judgment dated 5-11-1980 of R. G. Mishra, J., in Misc. Petition No. 14/72 (Motilal v. Anandi Lal, under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

3. The learned single Judge remanded a proceeding under S. 189(1) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short "the Code") to the Revenue Commissioner Gwalior Division, Gwalior to decide afresh in advertence to the findings and directions given by the learned single Judge the matter of petitioner Motilal's application for the resumption of 12 bighas 8 biswas out of S. No. 437, with present respondents 1 and 2 (Anandilal and Pannalal) and their brother Rampratap (since deceased and now represented by his widow respondent No. 3 Kadam Bai and their minor son respondent No. 4 Narrotum) and the remaining 12 bighas 8 biswas out of S. No. 437 S. No. 464 (10 bighas 5 biswas), with present respondent No. 5 Prahlad.

4. Incidentally, the revenue proceeding in question relating to the resumption of S. No. 442 (16 bighas 13 biswas) with a Ramchand ended finally in favour of Motilal before the Board of Revenue with the rejection of Ramchand's revision (No. 173 - III / 70) preferred against the second appellate order dated 22-10-70 of the Commissioner, Gwalior, in appeal No. 23 / 66 / 67. This matter was not affected by the judgment of the learned single Judge as the matter had already attained finality between Motilal and Ramchand.

5. Admittedly, Motilal elder brother Kanhaiya Lal, an ex - muafidar, leased out S. Nos. 437 and 464 to Harsingh and S. No. 442 to Ramchand, more than 5 years next before 2-10-1959 when the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 came into force, Narsingh sub-let survey No. 464 (10 bighas 5 biswas) and 12 bigas 8 biswas out of S. No. 437 to the present respondent No. 5 Prahlad but continued to be in possession of the remaining 12 bighas 8 biswas of S. No. 437.

6. Kanhaiyalal and Narsingh died well before 2-10-1959. Motilal was Kanhaiyalal's sole heir. Narsingh's heirs were his sons Anandilal, Pannalal and Ram Pratap.

7. Narsingh's son were admittedly in possession of 12 bighas 8 biswas out of S. No. 437. The Revenue Court held that Prahlad was in possession of the remaining half area of S. No. 437 and S. No. 464 (10 bighas 5 biswas).

8. With this fact - situation petitioner Motilal filed his application on 1-3-1960 under S. 189(1) of the Code for the resumption of the aforementioned lands and S. No. 442 (with Ramchand).

9. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Sheopurkalan allowed the application (registered as Case No. 1 / 63 / 64/189) in toto on 19-3-1966. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer held that at the date of the application Motilal had only 1 bigha 12 biswas of land under his personal cultivation.

10. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer further held that Narsingh's some Anandi Lal, Pannalal and Ram Pratap were in joint possession of 66 bighas and 3 biswas of land which, according to the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, amounted to 25.69 acres of lands.

11. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Sheopurkalan found respondent No. 5 Prahlad to be in possession of 48 bighas 18 biswas of land apart from the lands sub-let to him by Sarsingh.

12. Similarly, Ramchand was found to be in possession of 7 bighas and 8 biswas of and - 38.172 acres.

13. Now sub-sections (1) and (2) of S.189 of the Code and the explanation to the section are as follows:
"189 Resumption by Bhumiswami in certain cases (1) A Bhumiswami whose land is held by an occupancy" tenant (belonging