- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Smt Shiv Kunwarbai, Etc.
Factual and Procedural Background
The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court from two High Court orders that had allowed separate writ petitions filed by the respondents, thereby quashing eviction orders issued under Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1952.
Both matters stem from events in the former Indian State of Jhabua. Many years earlier, the then Ruler of Jhabua had granted jagirs to two individuals—Paswanji Smt Navratanbai (his mistress) and her son Bapu Ramsingh. Each grantee acquired or built two houses on College Marg. In 1948 the succeeding Ruler purported to forfeit the jagirs and issued orders granting each grantee a lifetime right to reside in the houses, but prohibiting sale or mortgage and stipulating that the houses would revert to the “Huzur” after their deaths.
Following the 1949 merger of Jhabua into the Union of Madhya Bharat, the Government of Madhya Bharat prepared lists of the Ruler’s private properties. The houses occupied by Navratanbai and Ramsingh were not included in the final list accepted by the Government of India. No eviction was attempted during their lifetimes.
On 30 April 1962 the Executive Engineer, District Dhar, invoked Sections 3 and 4 of the 1952 Act before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jhabua (the competent authority) seeking eviction of the present respondents—heirs of Navratanbai and Ramsingh. The Sub-Divisional Officer ordered eviction, and the Collector upheld it on appeal. The respondents then obtained writs from the High Court quashing those orders, prompting the State’s present appeals.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, on the facts, the houses in question ever became property of the Union of Madhya Bharat (and subsequently of the State of Madhya Pradesh) so as to constitute “government premises” under the Madhya Pradesh Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1952.
- Consequently, whether the State was entitled to invoke Sections 3 and 4 of the Act to evict the respondents and assess damages for unauthorised occupation.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court focused on the State's burden to prove that the disputed houses were government premises:
- The April 1, 1948 order recorded the confiscation of the jagirs but did not confiscate the houses; instead it gave Navratanbai a lifetime right of residence, merely restricting alienation and stating that the houses would be taken over after her death.
- The subsequent March 30, 1948 declaration listing certain properties as the private property of the Ruler did not conclusively include the respondents’ houses, and later governmental records showed only that some properties were accepted as the Ruler’s private property. There was no positive evidence that the remaining items were taken over by an act of State.
- The memorandum of July 25, 1949 required departments to ensure that only the listed private properties remained with the Ruler. The list ultimately accepted did not include the houses in question, suggesting they were not treated as State property.
- Because the respondents and their predecessors originally owned or possessed the properties, the State needed “irreproachable evidence” of displacement of that title before invoking the Eviction Act. No such evidence existed.
- As the State failed to establish that the houses ever vested in it, the premises could not be characterised as “government premises,” rendering Sections 3 and 4 of the 1952 Act inapplicable.
Holding and Implications
Appeals DISMISSED with costs.
The respondents remain in possession, and the eviction orders are permanently quashed. The decision turns on a lack of evidence of State ownership and sets no new precedent beyond reaffirming that the government must prove its title before resorting to statutory eviction procedures.
G.K Mitter, J.— The State of Madhya Pradesh has come up in appeal to this Court from two orders of the State High Court allowing two writ petitions filed by the two respondents herein for quashing the orders of eviction made against them under Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Government Premises (Eviction) Act.
2. The facts in Civil Appeal No. 1164 of 1967, are as follows. Many years back, a former Ruler of the Indian State of Jhabua in Central India had given a Jagir to his mistress, Paswanji Smt Navratanbai. Navratanbai had either purchased or constructed two houses on College Marg. According to the writ petition filed in the High Court the acquisition was out of her private funds. This was not however admitted in the return to the petition. The successor of the former Ruler Dilipsingh purported to forfeit the Jagir in the year 1948. The order of forfeiture is not on record but is sought to be borne out by an order, dated April 1, 1948, evidently made in anticipation of the merger of the State in the Union of Madhya Bharat which took place on June 29, 1948. The order addressed to Paswanji Navratanbai ran:
“In September, 1943, your Jagir was confiscated to the State and you were granted Rs 100 per month by way of allowance vide Parwana 1735, dated September 23, 1943, and this amount was being paid to you on behalf of the Huzur from the civil list because such types of allowances, etc., are paid from it. But now as new arrangements are being made regarding the States of Malwa and there is likelihood of reduction in the percentage of the civil list, therefore, the aforesaid monthly allowance shall henceforth be paid to you every month from State Treasury from generation to generation.
You may reside in the two big houses of Khasgi during your lifetime in which you are residing at present. After your lifetime both these houses shall be taken in possession of the Huzur. You shall have no right to sell or mortgage or create any charge on these houses.”
3. There is another Huzur order on record, dated March 30, 1948, purporting to declare a large number of immovable properties as the private property of the Ruler and the ruling family. Among the properties set out at the foot of the order are mentioned:
“6. (e) All houses which are occupied by Bapu Ramsingh;
(f) all houses which are in the occupancy of Navratanbai.”
4. When the question of settling the list of private properties of the Rulers of the integrating States in Madhya Bharat came up before the Government of India, the Political and External Department of the Madhya Bharat Secretariat passed an order recording a decision regarding the settlement of private properties of the State of Jhabua. The memorandum, dated July 25, 1949 of the Madhya Bharat Secretariat, Political and External Department, shows that each department concerned had to take action for handing over all the property to the Ruler concerned and to see that no property out of the properties belonging to the Ruler and/or the State before the formation of Madhya Bharat was left with the Ruler excepting the properties in the enclosed list. The relevant list for the Ruler of Jhabua did not include the properties occupied either by Bapu Ramsingh or Paswanji Navratanbai. Paswanji Navratanbai protested against the inclusion of her houses in the list of private properties made out by the Ruler of Jhabua and addressed a memorandum to the Raj Pramukh of Madhya Bharat Union for amendment of the inventory submitted by the said Ruler. No steps appear to have been taken to evict Navratanbai from the said premises in her lifetime. On April 30, 1962, the Executive Engineer, District Dhar, submitted an application under Section 3, read with Section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1952 for the eviction of the respondents in Appeal No. 1164 of 1967 from the two properties formerly belonging to Navratanbai before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jhabua, constituted the competent authority under the Act. An order of eviction made by the Sub-Divisional Officer was upheld in appeal to the Collector. Shivkunwarbai, widow of late Bapu Gordhansinghji, son of Navratanbai filed a writ petition in the High Court for quashing the said order. Appeal No. 1164 of 1967 is from the said order.
5. The facts in the other appeal i.e 1165 of 1967 are similar to the facts just narrated. In this case the same former Ruler had granted a Jagir to his son Ramsingh by his mistress Paswanji Bhagirathibai. The succeeding Ruler purported to forfeit the Jagir and granted a monthly allowance of Rs 100. An order similar to the one, dated March 30, 1948, already mentioned was passed while the order of April 1, 1948, affected Ramsingh as it did Navratanbai in the other case. There was an order of eviction as in the other case followed by a writ petition to the High Court.
6. The central question in these two appeals is, whether the State of Madhya Bharat ever became entitled to these properties in the facts and circumstances mentioned which justified its attempt to evict the respondents under the provisions of the Act of 1952. This would depend on the finding as to whether these properties were taken over by the Union of Madhya Bharat following the merger of the State of Jhabua therein in 1949. The fact that some only of the properties set forth in the declaration of April 1, 1948 and claimed by the Ruler as private property “were accepted as such” by the Government of Madhya Bharat does not lead to the inference that all the other items of property in the said declaration were taken over by an Act of State. There must be some positive evidence of such Act. It is also possible that the list had wrongly included properties belonging to citizens of the State of Jhabua about which there was no adjudication. The records only show that out of the list of properties submitted by the Ruler, a certain number of them was treated by the Government of India as being his private properties. There was no finding with regard to the others that they appertained to the Ruler as distinct from his private property. As these properties originally belonged to the predecessors-in-interest of the respondent i.e in CA No. 1164 of 1967 and the respondent in CA No. 1165 of 1967 there must be some evidence of displacement of their title before the Eviction Act could be made applicable to them. In order to succeed in the appeals the appellant must first establish that the properties had been confiscated by the Ex-Ruler and had ceased to belong to Navratanbai or Bapu Ramsingh. The order of April 1, 1948, records the confiscation of the Jagirs and does not record that the houses in the possession of Navrtanbai were similarly confiscated, assuming that confiscation was possible by a mere order of this type. On the other hand, the order shows that Bai Navratanbai was to have full use of the houses for her lifetime but she was not to sell or mortgage the same. The declaration that after her lifetime the property would be taken possession of by the Huzur does not amount to an order of confiscation and a regrant thereof for the donee's lifetime. If the properties remained the property of Navratanbai after the passing of the said order of 1948 nothing was done thereafter to show that she lost her interest in the properties or that the same passed to the Union of Madhya Bharat and from the said Union to the State of Madhya Pradesh. When attempts are made to deprive a person of his lawful inheritance it must be shown by irreproachable evidence that the person in possession ceased to have any interest therein at a particular point of time and that by some process of law the property vested in the person seeking to eject the former lawful possessor. There is no such evidence in this case. It follows that the properties, the subject-matter of the two appeals, never became the properties of the Ruler of Jhabua ownership whereof passed to the Union of Madhya Bharat and from the Union to the State of Madhya Pradesh. Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Premises (Eviction) Act, 1952, enables the competent authority under the Act to order inter alia that the person in unauthorised occupation of any government premises to vacate the same within 30 days of the date of the service of the notice in terms of the section. Section 4 empowers the competent authority to assess damages on the ground of use and occupation by any person in unauthorised occupation of any government premises. In order to enable Government to take proceedings successfully under either of these sections, it must satisfy the court that the premises in respect whereof action was taken was government premises. As the State failed to establish this fact the question of eviction under the Act could never arise.
7. In the result, the appeals are dismissed with costs.
Alert