State of Madhya Pradesh vs Kundan Singh

S.K. Dubey, J.

The State of Madhya Pradesh as defendant has preferred this second appeal, which was admitted by this Court on the following substantial question of law :

Whether in view of the decision of this Court in Khuman Singh Sander Singh Vs. Dhan Singh and others, the plaintiffs were entitled to retain possession only on that portion of the land on the abolition of the Zamindari, was prior to the date of abolition, under the actual personal cultivation of the plaintiffs as Zamindars and not of that portion which was not under actual personal cultivation, though both the parts form part of the same survey number ?

Brief facts leading to this appeal are thus : The plaintiff/respondent, an ex-proprietor a Zamindar instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of suit land situated at Survey No. 105, area 38 bighas 16 biswas, in village Battisa, Tehsil Basoda, District Vidisha, on the averments that he was recorded as Khudkasht in the Revenue records of Samvat 2007, that is prior to the date of enforcement of the M.B. Zamindari Abolition Act Samvat 2008 [Act No. 13 of 1951 (Samvat 2008)] (for short the ''2008 Act''), on 7 bighas of land his crops were standing and remaining land 31 bighas and 16 biswas was his Shamil Jot'' over which grass was grown. The land 31 bighas and 16 biswas being part of Survey No. 105 did not vest in the State u/S 4 (2) of the 2008 Act. The State contested the suit. The Courts below, placing reliance on a decision of this Court, in Bindraban v. State o/M. P. 1967 RN 109 decreed the suit.

Shri S. S. Bansal, Panel Lawyer for the State -appellant/defendant and Shri Arun Mishra, counsel for the respondent/plaintiff were heard. Record perused.

In case of Khumansingh (supra) a Division Bench of this Court considered the definition of ''Padti Jadeed'' u/S 2 (6) of the Quanoon Mal, Gwalior State and, on comparing the provisions of the two Acts, that is M.P. Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950 and the 2008 Act, has laid down that the expression ''Khudkasht'' only means that part of the land which was under personal cultivation. Where part of the Khasra number was recorded Alawa Jot, i.e. not under personal cultivation during the years 2006, 2007 and 2008 it could not be recorded as Khudkasht. It was further observed that there is no warrant for the submission that when a part of the land bearing a particular Khasra number was under cultivation, entire land taken as a suit has to be under law, treated as under cultivation, as u/s 2 (6) of the Quanoon Mal, Gwalior State, ''Padti Jadeed'' means land which remained uncultivated for more than three years.

It is settled that where the land was recorded as grass land (Beed) in revenue papers, it cannot be said to be cultivated land when the 2008 Act came into force, because ''Khudkasht'' as defined in the 2008 Act means the land cultivated by Zamindar himself, as such, it stood vested in the State on coming into force the 2008 Act. See State of M. P. v. Ramratan & others 1984 RN 171 and Bahadur Singh v. State of hi. M.P. 1985 RN 374

In case of Daulat Singh v. State of M.P. and others 1987 RN 195, this Court considered the necessity and effect of entries of ''Kans'', ''Padti Kans'' and ''Padati Kadim'' in Khasra record and observed that u/Ss 4 (2) and 2 (c) of the 2008 Act, the land cannot be treated as Khudkasht as the entries at Column No. 21, 22, 23, and 24 are the sub-divisions only under the main caption of ''Gair Majarua Bhumi Ka Vivran''. Column Nos 21 and 22 are the sub-divisions of sub-head ''Shamil Jot Khaton Ki'' whereas Column Nos. 23 and 24 are sub-divisions of sub-head ''Alawa Jot (Gair Khaton Ki)''. Distinguishing the decision of this Court in case of Bheraon Singh v. Govt. of M. P. 1983 RN 243 and placing reliance on Khumansingh''s case (supra), the Court observed that such entries of ''Gair Majarua'' means the land which is not under cultivation. Therefore, the entry of Beed in Column of ''Shamil Jot'' will not make the land as ''occupied land'' u/S 2 (f) of the 2008 Act by a tenure holder or Khudkasht by the ex proprietor, which u/s 2 (c) means land cultivated by the Zamindar himself or through employees or hired labourers and includes ''Sir'' land, who u/S 4 (2) shall continue to remain in possession of his Khudkasht land, so recorded in the annual village papers before the date of vesting.

Judged in the light of consistent view of this Court, the entry of Samvat 2007 shows that though the plaintiff is recorded as Khudkasht in Column No. 5, in Column Nos. 10, 11 and 12 the area of personal cultivation described is only 7 bighas, while in Column Nos. 21, 22, 23 and 24, the area of 33 bighas and 16 biswas is recorded as Beed. The same entry followed in Samvat 2008 and 2009. Therefore, in view of the entry so recorded of the area as Beed and not as Khudkasht, that part of land of survey No. 105 vested in the State by virtue of Section 3 of the 2008 Act.

In view of the settled and consistent view of this Court, the decree of the Courts below, placing reliance on the decision in Brindaban''s case, which having been overruled in Khumansingh''s case (supra), declaring the plaintiff as Bhumiswami of the land and restraining the State with the possession of the plaintiff, cannot be sustained, has to be set aside, and is hereby set aside.

In the result, the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.