Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951 – s.4(1)(a), 4(2) and 5(f) – Father of defendant nos.2 & 3 claimed that the land in question be granted to him as it was recorded in his name before the abolition of Zamindari Rights – Plaintiffs filed suit inter alia for declaration pleading that the suit land was recorded as ‘Charnoi’ i.e. common land used for grazing cattle by the villagers and it was illegally given to the defendants – Trial Court decreed the suit – Appellate Court reversed the same holding that it was a grove and saved from the vesting u/s.5(f) – High Court reversing the findings of the Appellate Court held that the land was recorded as Charnoi land and as such it vested in the State and it was not khud-kasht land of the ex-proprietor – Held: In order to save the land from vesting, s.4(2) requires land to be ‘personally cultivated’ by Zamindar or through employees or hired labourers and another sine qua non is that it should be so recorded in revenue papers as “khud-kasht”, otherwise all land vest in the State as provided in s.4(1)a) – Once the land is recorded as ‘Charnoi’, such common land clearly vests in the State as provided in s.4(1)(a) – s.5(f) did not confer any rights on Zamindars on such common land and did not save the same from vesting, once it was recorded as ‘Charnoi’ for public purpose before the date of vesting in the year, 1950-1951 – When land is primarily used for ‘Charnoi’ i.e. common grazing land for cattle of villagers, it would not fall into the category of ‘grove’ and s.5(f) would not save such trees from vesting – It cannot be retained by Zamindar as he had no existing right on such land even before date of vesting, it being common land, it belonged to villagers – No individual can claim that such land belongs to him exclusively – Trial Court rightly decreed the suit in favour of villagers – No ground to interfere with the judgment of the High Court – M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 4, Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951 makes it clear that all lands (cultivable, barren or bir), forest, trees, village-sites, hats, bazars, mela-grounds shall vest in the State automatically free from all encumbrances. Section 4(2) provides saving of only khud-kasht land, which is so recorded in the Samvat year 2007 corresponding to the agricultural year 1950-51 before the date of vesting. The date of vesting is 2.10.1951. In order to save the land from vesting Section 4(2) requires land to be ‘personally cultivated’ by Zamindar or through employees or hired labourers and another sine qua non is that it should be so recorded in revenue papers as “khud-kasht”, otherwise all land vest in the State as provided in Section 4(1)(a). Once the land is recorded as ‘Charnoi’ i.e., common land reserved for grazing of cattles of villagers, such common land clearly vests in the State as provided in Section 4(1)(a) all the land, the forest, trees, village-sites, pathways etc. vest in the State absolutely. Since the land was ‘Charnoi’ i.e., common grazing land for cattle of the villagers having huge area 72 bighas 18 biswa the fruitbearing trees of custard apple also vested in the State. The provisions contained in Section 5(f) did not confer any rights on Zamindars on such common land and did not save same from vesting, once it was recorded as ‘Charnoi’ for public purpose before the date of vesting in the year 1950-51 i.e., Samvat year 2007. [Paras 9-11] [443-B-G]
1.2 For “grove” to be recognized as such should be of such trees when fully grown preclude land on which they are standing from being used for a purpose other than that of grove-land. When land is used for ‘Charnoi’ i.e. common grazing land for cattle of villagers, it would not fall into the category of ‘grove’ and provision of Section 5(f) would not save such trees from vesting. The village sites, comprise of common land reserved for villagers, vest in State. It cannot be retained by Zamindar as he had no existing right on such land even before date of vesting, it being common land, it belonged to villagers. No individual can claim that such land belongs to him exclusively. The fruit bearing trees irrespective of numbers have also vested in the State under Section 4(1)(a). No right can be claimed on trees on such common land under Section 5(f) by a proprietor. The decision taken by the Additional Commissioner while holding that land being grazing land has vested in the State was in accordance with law. The Board of Revenue’s order to the contrary was perverse and illegal. [Para 12] [444-E-H]
1.3 The question as to title in view of the provisions under the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 is the domain of civil court, the Trial Court was absolutely right in decreeing the suit in favour of villagers. Such common land could not have been settled at all in favour of the erstwhile proprietor or his legal representatives. The approach of the First Appellate Court holding it to be grove was perverse. The First Appellate Court failed to understand the purport of ‘Charnoi’ which is a common land reserved for the public purpose and is not exclusively for grazing of cattle of Zamindar. Such village sites/common land clearly vests in the State automatically free from all encumbrances. There is absolutely no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court. [Paras 13, 15] [445-A-C, E]
Shrimant Sardar Chandrojirao Angre v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1968] 1 SCR 761 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.