- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ram Babu Singh And Others v. State Of M.P .
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal was admitted on four substantial questions of law arising from a suit filed by the plaintiffs (appellants), who described themselves as ex-zamindars. The plaintiffs pleaded that their father died in Samvat 2006, that they were in occupation of zamindari land under the guardianship of their mother, and claimed that the suit lands (identified by various survey numbers, some renumbered) were in their possession. They asserted rights derived from being "Pucca Krishak" after abolition of zamindari and relied on the existence of a private well and fruit-bearing trees on the land to claim protection under Section 5 of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act (the "Act").
The trial court held that the plaintiffs had not acquired the rights of Pucca Krishak, that the lands were recorded in categories such as "Chamoi", "Tadat-Kadim" (also referenced elsewhere as "Padat Kadim"), "Bir" and "Banjar", and therefore vested in the State under Section 4 of the Act; the plaintiffs failed to prove title by adverse possession. The appeal raises four specific legal questions concerning application of Sections 4(2), 4(1) and 5 of the Act and the refusal of a perpetual injunction. The present opinion deals with those questions and ultimately dismisses the appeal with costs.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the right, title and possession of the plaintiff-appellants were protected over the disputed property under Section 5 of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act?
- Whether the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act are applicable to the claim put by the plaintiff in the suit?
- Whether the two Courts below had correctly applied the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act in dismissing the plaintiffs' suit?
- Whether the refusal to grant perpetual injunction was against the established facts and provisions of law?
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The appellants relied on provisions of Section 5 of the Act—specifically subsections (b), (c), (d) and (f)—to claim that private wells, trees, buildings, groves and related appurtenances on the suit lands continued to belong to or be held by them.
- They pleaded continuous possession of the lands and that fruit-bearing trees and a private well existed on the suit properties, which, they argued, entitled them to protection under Section 5.
- Counsel for the appellants relied upon case law (including Vijayaram Singh v. State of M.P.; Kala Bai v. Bhoj Raj; Krishna Ram Mahale v. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao; and Midnapur Zamindary Co. Ltd. v. Naresh Narayan Roy) to support submissions about protection of settled possession and applicability of Section 5, and the proposition that possession should not be disturbed except by due process of law.
Respondent/State Position as Reflected in the Record
- The record (including exhibits filed by the plaintiffs) indicates that the lands were not recorded as Khudkasht (homestead) lands but were recorded in categories such as Padat Kadim, Banjar, Bir and similar non-Khudkasht classifications.
- The trial court concluded that the lands vested in the State under Section 4(1) of the Act and that the plaintiffs failed to prove Khudkasht status or title by adverse possession.
- The opinion notes the State's entitlement to initiate action to secure possession against encroachment or unauthorised possession under the M.P. Land Revenue Code and observes that no person has a right to occupy Government land without lawful process.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Vijayaram Singh and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors., reported in 1998 RN 99 | Cited for the proposition that where mango and babul (and similar) trees are standing, Section 5(f) (groves recorded in the name of the outgoing proprietor) may be applicable even if some non-fruit trees are present. | The court observed that there was nothing on record to demonstrate that the suit lands were recorded as a grove and settled with the ex-proprietor; accordingly Section 5(f) did not operate in favour of the plaintiffs in this case. |
| Kala Bai and Ors. v. Bhoj Raj, reported in 1992 (1) MPJR-SN 7 | Cited to support the submission that when plaintiffs are found in settled possession of property, their rights are to be protected unless they are dislodged by due process of law. | The court considered this principle but applied the statutory framework: possession alone, without proof of the requisite record classification (Khudkasht) or other legal entitlement, did not confer the claimed rights against the State. |
| Krishna Ram Mahale (dead) by his LRs. v. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao, reported in AIR 1989 SC 2097 | Relied upon by appellants in support of protections for possession — cited by counsel, as part of authorities on protection of possession subject to law. | The court noted this reliance but reiterated that possession of Government land without legal title is not protected; statutory vesting under Section 4 defeated the plaintiffs' claim. |
| Midnapur Zamindary Co. Ltd. v. Naresh Narayan Roy, reported in AIR 1924 PC 144 | Quoted for the observation: "In India, persons are not permitted to take forcible possession, they must obtain such possession as they are entitled to through a Court." | The court cited the principle to underscore that encroachment on Government land cannot be validated by mere possession and that the Government may seek possession under the M.P. Land Revenue Code. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the statutory text of Section 5 of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act and the plaintiffs' documentary evidence to determine whether the plaintiffs acquired or retained rights under Section 5. The analysis proceeded in the following steps, as reflected in the opinion:
- Identification of the specific subsections relied upon: the appellants based their claim on Section 5(b), (c), (d) and (f). The court reproduced Section 5 and parsed its language (for example noting that 5(b) refers to "wells" in the plural and that 5(c) and 5(d) require particular land classifications such as Khudkasht or occupied land).
- Burden of proof: the court emphasised that the burden lay on the plaintiffs to prove that the lands were recorded as Khudkasht (homestead) on the relevant date (the date of abolition of proprietory rights), because the benefit of certain sub-sections of Section 5 depends on that classification.
- Examination of documentary evidence: the court reviewed the plaintiffs' exhibits (including Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-4). Ex. P-3 indicated that the lands in Samvat 2006 were not recorded as Khudkasht but bore entries such as Khalihan, Padat-Kadim, Bir, Seda, Banjar. Ex. P-4 recorded specific trees in particular survey numbers but also showed classifications like "Padat Kadim" and "Bir."
- Legal effect of the recorded classifications: relying on Section 4 of the Act, which provides that rights, title and interest of the proprietor in such areas shall cease and vest in the State (including land recorded as cultivable, barren or Bir), the court held that lands recorded as Padat Kadim, Banjar and Bir vested in the State under Section 4(1).
- On the facts before it, the court found that the plaintiffs had not established that the lands were Khudkasht and that mere presence of fruit-bearing trees or a well, or a claim of ancestral expenditure on a well, did not satisfy the statutory requirement for Section 5 protection where the records did not support Khudkasht classification.
- Application to Section 4(2): the court concluded that Section 4(2) was not applicable to the plaintiffs' claim because the necessary condition (that the lands be Khudkasht or otherwise entitled) was not proved; hence the plaintiffs could not derive rights under that provision.
- Review of lower courts' conclusions: the court found no error in the lower courts' dismissal of the suit, since the plaintiffs failed to carry the burden of proof as to Khudkasht classification and hence were not entitled to benefits under Section 4(2) or Section 5 of the Act.
- Additional statutory context: the court noted that after the coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, Section 239 of that Code precluded persons from acquiring title over lands having fruit-bearing trees, reinforcing the conclusion that the plaintiffs lacked title.
Holding and Implications
Holding: Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. The court ordered costs including counsel's fee as per the schedule.
Direct consequences for the parties:
- The plaintiffs (appellants) were held to have failed to prove entitlement to rights under Section 5 of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act because they did not establish that the suit lands were recorded as Khudkasht.
- The contested lands were held to have vested in the State under Section 4(1) of the Act (classified as Padat Kadim, Banjar, Bir, etc.), and the plaintiffs were not entitled to protection or rights under Section 4(2) or Section 5.
- The lower courts' dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit was upheld; no error was found in their application of the statutory provisions to the facts of the case.
Broader implications:
The opinion does not announce or discuss the creation of a new legal precedent beyond applying the statutory provisions and existing authorities to the facts. The decision confines itself to the direct statutory interpretation and factual assessment in this matter.
1. This appeal is admitted on following substantial questions of law :-
"(1) Whether the right, title and possession of the plaintiff-appellants were protected over the disputed property under Section 5 of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act?
(2) Whether the provisions of Section 4 (2) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act are applicable to the claim put by the plaintiff in the suit?
(3) Whether the two Courts below had correctly applied the provisions of Section 4 (2) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act in dismissing the plaintiffs suit ?
(4) Whether the refusal to grant perpetual injunction was against the established facts and provisions of law ?"
2. I proceed to deal with first question of law. First question of law relates whether the rights of appellants were protected over the suit lands under Section 5 of Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Section 5 of the Act is reproduced below :--
"5. Private wells, trees, buildings, house sites, and enclosures.--
(a) All open enclosures used for agricultural or domestic purposes and in continuous possession (which includes possession of a former proprietor) for twelve years immediately before the 1st of January, 1951, all open house sites purchased for consideration, all buildings, places of worship, wells, situated in and trees standing on lands included in such enclosures of house-sites or land appertaining to such buildings or places of worships within the limits of a village-site belonging to or held by the outgoing proprietor or any other person shall continue to belong or to be held by such proprietor or other person as the case may be, and the land thereof, with the areas appurtenant thereto shall be settled with him by the Government on such terms and conditions as it may determine.
(b) All private wells and buildings on occupied land belonging to or held by the outgoing proprietor or any other person shall continue to belong to or be held by such proprietor or other person.
(c) All trees standing on land comprised in a Khudkasht or homestead and belonging to or held by the outgoing proprietor or any other person shall continue to belong to or be held by such proprietor or other person.
(d) All trees standing on occupied land other than lands comprised in Khudkasht or home-stead and belonging to or held by a person other than the outgoing proprietor shall continue to belong to or be held by such person.
(e) All tanks situate on occupied land and belonging to or held by the outgoing proprietor or any other person shall continue to belong to or be held by such proprietor or other person.
(f) All groves wherever situate and recorded in village papers in the name of the outgoing proprietor or any other person shall continue to belong to or be held by such proprietor or such other person and the land under such grove shall be settled with such proprietor or such other person by the Government on such terms and conditions as it may determine."
Learned counsel for the appellants banks his case on Section 5 (b), (c), (d) and (f) of the Act to claim his title.
3. The plaintiffs have filed a suit specifically claiming therein that the plaintiffs are ex-zamindar. The father of plaintiffs died in Samvat 2006. They are in occuption of zamindari land under the guardianship of their mother. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit lands pleaded in para 3 of the plaint are in possession of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs acquired rights of Pucca Krishak on the abolition of Zamindari Act. The plaintiffs claimed that survey Nos. 1702, 52/2 and 4/2 in Samvat 2006 have been renumbered as survey Nos. 18 and 73, respectively, and these lands have been recorded in the name of mother of plaintiff No. 2. It was pleaded that in survey No. 96 there exists a private well and fruit-bearing trees. Learned counsel pleaded that since fruit-bearing trees and well is existing on the land, the plaintiffs have acquired rights over the property under Section 5 of the Act. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs have not acquired rights of Pucca Krishak after abolition of Zamindari. Since the lands were recorded as 'Chamoi', Tadat-Kadim', therefore, the lands have vested in the State. The plaintiffs have failed to prove their title by adverse possession.
4. On perusal of Section 5 (b) of the Act, it provides that all private wells and buildings on occupied land belonging to or held by the outgoing proprietor or any other person shall continue to belong to or to be held by such proprietor. The Legislature has used the word "wells'. Having single well on occupied land will not confer any right. Section 5 (c) of the Act provides that all trees standing on the land comprised in a Khudkasht or home-stead shall continue to belong to or to be held by outgoing proprietor. Thus, the burden is upon the plaintiffs to prove that the lands were recorded as Khudkasht lands. Section 5 (d) provides that all trees standing on occupied land other than lands comprised in Khudkasht or home-stead and belonging to or held by a person other than the outgoing proprietor shall continue to belong to or be held by such person. Section 5 (f) provides that all groves wherever situate and recorded in village papers in the name of the outgoing proprietor shall be settled with such proprietor.
5. The plaintiffs have filed document, Ex. P-3. Ex. P-3 discloses that these lands in Samvat 2006 were not recorded as Khudkasht lands. Survey No. 27 was used for Khalihan and Ors. survey numbers were recorded as Padat-Kadim, Bir, Seda, Banjar, respectively. In Ex. P-4, in survey No. 78 it is recorded that the tree of Khajur is standing on the land. In survey No. 79 the land is recorded as 'Bir'. It is recorded that 8 Khajur trees, 1 tree each of Mahua, Imli, Gurar and two trees of Bamoor are standing on the land. Survey No. 78 is recorded as 'Padat Kadim' and survey No. 79 is recorded as 'Bir'. The essential condition for settlement of lands with the proprietor is that the land should be Khudkasht. Section 4 of the Act provides that all rights, title and interest of the proprietor in such area, including land (cultivable, barren or Bir), shall cease and be vested in the State free from all encumbrances.
6. Thus, from the documents, filed by the plaintiffs, it is apparent that the lands were not recorded as Khudkasht. Even otherwise, on the evidence of plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have stated that their possession is continuing over the lands. There are fruit-bearing trees. They have stated that their ancestors have spent money on digging the well, but P.W. 1 has not stated that this land was declared as Khudkasht of the ex-proprietor. .Similarly, P.W. 2 Arjunsingh has not stated that the lands were Khudkasht of the plaintiffs. Since the lands were recorded as 'Bir', 'Barren' and 'Padat Kadim', the lands have vested in the State under Section 4 of the Act.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the question of Section 5 of the Act is considered in the case of Vijayaram Singh and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors., reported in 1998 RN 99, and submitted that where mango and babul trees are standing, provision of Section 5 (f) is applicable even if some non-fruits trees are standing on the land and such land does not vest in the State. Section 5 (f) provides that the groves recorded in the name of outgoing proprietor shall be settled with such proprietor. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the suit lands were recorded as grove and settled with the ex-proprietor. Since the plaintiffs have failed to prove existence of grove and settlement of land with ex-proprietor, therefore, no rights had accrued to them under Section 5 (f) of the Act.
8. Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act provides that where definition is not specified then the definition of Quanoon Mal Gwalior shall apply. In 'Araji' lands recorded as 'Seda' and 'Bir' grass are also included. 'Banjar Land' is defined as the land, which is not cultivated. 'Padat Jadid' means the land which is not cultivated for past three years, and 'Padat Kadim' is defined as the land which is not cultivated for more than three years. 'Bir' is defined as the land used for growing grass. 'Charagah' is a land set apart for grazing of cattle, which is also recorded as 'Charnoi'.
9. Therefore, considering the plaintiffs' own case and documents, the plaintiffs will not be entitled to benefit of Section 5 of the Act. The plaintiffs have not proved that the lands were their Khudkasht lands. The documents filed by the plaintiffs demonstrate that the lands were recorded as 'Padat Kadim', 'Banjar' and 'Bir'. These lands have vested in the State under Section 4 of the Act. Even otherwise, after coming into force of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, no person shall have any title over the lands having fruit-bearing trees under Section 239 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code.
Accordingly, it is held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their rights under Section 5 of the Act. The question of law No. 1 is answered against the plaintiffs.
10. As regards question of law No. 2, as discussed above, provisions of Section 4 (2) of the Act are applicable lo the claim put by the plaintiffs. From the exhibits filed by the plaintiffs, it is established that the lands have vested in the State under Section 4 (1) of the Act. The plaintiffs have failed to prove that the disputed lands were 'Khudkasht'. Hence, they have not acquired any right under Section 4 (2) of the Act.
11. As regards question of law No. 3, it is held that the Courts below have not applied provisions of Section 4 (2) of the Act. The burden was on the plaintiffs to prove that the lands were recorded as their 'Khudkasht' lands on the date of abolition of proprietory rights. The plaintiffs have failed to prove that the suit lands were their 'Khudkasht' lands. Hence, they are not entitled to any benefit under Section 4 (2) of the Act, and Courts below have not committed any error in dismissing the suit.
12. Question of law No. 4 :
Counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment in the case of Kala Bai and Ors. v. Bhoj Raj, reported in 1992 (1) MPJR-SN 7, and submitted that when the plaintiffs are found in settled possession of the property, their rights are to be protected unless they are dislodged by due process of law. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon another judgment in the case of Krishna Ram Mahale (dead) by his LRs. v. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao, reported in AIR 1989 SC 2097, and invited attention to the observations in the judgment by Privy Council in the case of Midnapur Zamindary Co. Ltd. v. Naresh Narayan Roy, reported in AIR 1924 PC 144, where it is observed
"In India, persons are not permitted to take forcible possession, they must obtain such possession as they are entitled to through a Court". This law was prior to independence. No person has right to occupy Government land and if there is an encroachment or unauthorised possession over the Government land, the Government is free to initiate action to secure possession under the provisions of M.P. Land Revenue Code.
13. In the result, appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee as per schedule.
Alert