M.B. Zamindari Abolition Act – s. 4 – Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 – s. 158 – Plaintiffs/respondents filed suit as the successor of the Ex-Zamindar and sought declaration of Bhumiswami rights and permanent injunction, restraining the defendants-State from interfering in their possession of the land comprising different survey numbers – The plaintiffs/respondents claimed that the land was Khud-kasht land of their predecessors – Trial Court dismissed the suit and same was affirmed by the First Appellate Court – However, the High Court allowed the second appeal and decreed the suit – On appeal, held: The land to be saved from vesting in the State was required to be under personal cultivation i.e., Khud-kasht, but besides it must have to recorded as “Khud-kasht” in the revenue paper before the date of vesting i.e. Samvat year 2007 – In the instant case, it was apparent from Khasra entries before the date of vesting; in the relevant Samvat year 2007, the land was not recorded as Khud-kasht of the erstwhile Zamindars – The land not being recorded as Khut-kasht in the revenue papers before the date of vesting, the mandatory requirement of s. 4(2) of the Abolition Act was not fulfilled – Such land is not saved from vesting u/s. 4(1) of the Abolition Act as a cultivable, barren or Bir land vested in the State automatically free from all encumbrances – Thus, the grassland, i.e., ‘bir’ land as per s. 4(1) of the Act vested in the State – Apart from that, the requirement of s. 2(c) of the Abolition Act that there had to be personal cultivation of the land by the Zamindar was not fulfilled – There was no personal cultivation recorded in revenue papers of erstwhile Zamindars – Therefore, the land automatically vested in the State u/s. 4(1) of the Act – Findings of the Trial court and First Appellate Court was based on proper appreciation of evidence – Thus, judgment and decree passed by the High Court set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The requirement of section 4(2) of the M.B. Zamindari Abolition Act is dual that the land should not only be Khud-kasht, but it should be so recorded in the annual village papers before the date of vesting. As the date of vesting was 2.10.1951, the agricultural year in the erstwhile Madhya Bharat commenced from 1 st July to 30 th June of the succeeding Gregorian calendar year, the only relevant entry was before the date of vesting, i.e., of Samvat 2007. The land is required to be so recorded as ‘Khud-kasht’ in the revenue papers before the date of vesting. As 2.10.1951 fell in the Samvat year 2008, thus the entry in record of rights of Samvat 2007 assumes significance as that has been made the basis for conferring of the rights on abolition of Zamindari. [Para 11] [687-F-G]
2. The land to be saved from vesting was required to be under personal cultivation i.e., Khud-kasht, but besides it must have been so recorded as “Khud-kasht” in the revenue paper before the date of vesting, i.e., 2007. Thus, there are three requirements namely (i) personal cultivation as defined in Section 2 (c); (ii) entry in the record of right; and (iii) before the date of vesting, i.e., 2007. In case the land was so recorded as Khud-kasht, but was not personally cultivated by the Zamindar as specified in section 2(c), such land shall vest in State. [Para 12] [687-H; 688-A-B]
3. In the present case the rights have been claimed under section 158 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 on the ground that the predecessors of the plaintiff were pakka tenants and acquired Bhumiswami rights under section 158 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. Under section 37(1) of Madhya Pradesh Zamindari Abolition Act, “pakka tenancy” rights were conferred upon only on such a proprietor with respect to the land under his possession as Khud-kasht land as per section 2(c) read with section 4(2). [Para 19] [691-D]
4. When this Court considers the entry of 2007 placed on record by the plaintiff, it is apparent that Survey No.77, 191, 195 and 199 are recorded as “Bir land.” Concerning survey No.83 also finding recorded by the trial court and a first appellate court is that the same was recorded as “Bir land,” i.e., “grassland.” The plaintiffs/ respondents has submitted that at least concerning Survey No.77, entry of cultivation of ‘Jwar’ was recorded in Column No.5.Whereas in Column No.21 and 22 there was the entry of the ‘Bir.’ [Para 20] [691-E-F]
5. It is apparent from Khasra entries before the date of vesting; in the relevant Samvat year 2007, the land is not recorded as Khud-kasht of the erstwhile zamindars, i.e., predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs. The land not being so recorded as Khud-kasht in the revenue papers before the date of vesting, the mandatory requirement of section 4(2) of the Abolition Act, is not fulfilled. Such land is not saved from vesting under section 4(1) of the Abolition Act, 2003 as a cultivable, barren or Bir land vested in the State automatically free from all encumbrances. Thus, the grassland, i.e., ‘bir’ land as per section 4(1) of the Act vested in the State. [Para 21] [691-G-H; 692-A]
6. Apart from that requirement of section 2(c), there had to be personal cultivation of the land by the Zamindar was not fulfilled. The land was required to be personally cultivated either by Zamindars himself or through employees or hired labourers. There was no personal cultivation recorded in revenue papers of erstwhile Zamindars and land was also not so recorded as Khud-kasht land. [Para 22] [692-B]
7. Bir land is vested in State under Section 4(1). The grass is naturally grown without effort, and it cannot be said to be produced by way of rendering one’s labour or through employees or hired labour. The land should have been under Khud-kasht i.e., personal cultivation and so recorded of the ex-proprietor to be saved from vesting as statutorily mandated. There is a specific provision in Section 4(1) of the Abolition Act that the grassland, i.e., ‘Bir land,’ held by the proprietor automatically vested in the State free from all encumbrances. In which case land lying fallow also vested in the State. [Para 25] [693-A-B]
8. About entries in revenue record Trial Court and First Appellate Court, have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the land was not under personal cultivation. It was not open to the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact, which was based on the proper appreciation of evidence on record. Even the plaintiff was unable to state whether there was any crop in the relevant year 2007 before Zamindari abolition. Such finding of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence could not have been interfered with by the High Court within the ken of Section 100, CPC. [Para 29] [694-C-D]
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.