MARGONI YELLIAH SAMAYYA Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application raises an important question as to the interpretation of Section 150 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954 (No. II of 1955), which shall hereafter be referred to as 'the Code'. The point arises in this way:

(2.) THE petitioner is the Bhumidhari of five survey numbers, viz. S. Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11, admeasuring in area 37 acres and 15 gunthas, assessed athis. 7, and situate at mouza Kambalpetta Chak, Tahsil Sironcha, District Chanda. On January 3, 1957, the petitioner made an application to the Tahsildar, Sironcha, under Section 150(1) of the Code for obtaining Bhumiswami rights in these fields and deposited three times the revenue assessed on his fields as required by that section. The application was for a declaration in his favour that he became a Bhumiswami of the lands comprised in the holding. His application was rejected by the Tahsildar on August 27, 1957, on the ground that no rules had been framed under Section 150 of the Code and since there were 303 timber trees yarned at Rs. 900 on the lands, if the applicant was declared a Bhumiswami he would get the rights of ownership of those trees as provided in Section 162(1) of the Code, and that this would mean that he had acquired the right of ownership of the timber trees valued at Rs. 900 by paying Rs. 21 into the State treasury. And as there was a discretion vested in the revenue officer under Section 150 to grant a declaration or not, the Tahsildar felt that it would not be proper for him Jo issue a declaration under Section 150 as prayed for by the petitioner. That was why he rejected the petitioner's application. This decision of the Tahsildar was upheld in appeal by the Sub -Divisional Officer, Sironcha/Chanda, by his order dated December 21, 1957. There was a further appeal against this order to the Deputy Commissioner, Chanda, who upheld the decision of the, two lower authorities on February 22, 1958. The petitioner then preferred a revision to the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division. But that revision came to be dismissed by him on February 19, 1959. It seems that this decision has been published in (1959) N.L.J. 145. It is against this dismissal of his application that the petitioner has filed the present application on the ground that the respondents were in error in holding that Section 150(1) of the Code did not impose on the revenue officers an obligation to declare the petitioner to be a Bhumiswami in respect of his holding, as he had paid three times the revenue assessed on the holding as required by Section 150.

(3.) NOW , the argument in support of this petition urged on behalf of the petitioner by Mrs. Chandke is that Section 150 of the Code confers a right on aBhumidhari to get a declaration in his favour that he is a Bhumiswami of the land comprised in the holding, provided he deposits three times the revenue assessed on the holding and his application satisfies the other requirements of that section. It is contended that the lower authorities were in error in holding that because rules were not framed under the Code with reference in applications under Section 150 and because timber trees existed on the land, therefore, they had the discretion to reject the application of the petitioner. In support of her contention, Mrs. Chandke has referred to some relevant sections of the Code. But before we go to these other sections, it is necessary to quote Section 150 of the Code, the interpretation of which falls to be considered in the present application. Section 150 runs as follows: - 150. (1) Subject to rules made under this Code, a Revenue Officer may, except in such areas as the State Government may, by notification, exclude from the operation of this section, on an application made by a Bhumidhari and on his deposing three times the revenue for the time being assessed on the holding, declare such Bhumidhari to be a Bhumiswami of the land comprised in the holding: Provided that no such application shall lie in respect of a part of a holding. (2) A declaration made under Sub -section (1) shall take effect from the commencement of the agricultural year next following the date of suchdeclaration. Now, it has to be mentioned that the Code came into force on October 1, 1955, and it repealed, amongst other Acts, the Central Provinces Tenancy Act, 1920 (I of 1920), which shall hereafter be referred to as 'the Tenancy Act', and the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917 (II of 1917), which shall hereafter be referred to as 'the Land Revenue Act.