MOHIUDDIN MOHOMMAD DIN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application, ostensibly under Article 226 (and under Article 227 in the alternative) of the Constitution for a direction on the Revenue Commissioner, Bhopal, not to implement his order dated 12th March, 1956, setting aside an alleged settlement of about 380 acres in a village called Nibbookheda on pagras, a class of tenure, in which lands are given on progressively increasing rent, for a long term, for being brought under cultivation. The ground urged here is that the lands were not held under the Bhopal Land Revenue Act, and, as such, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction. Possibly, according to the petitioner, the forest authorities had jurisdiction but they have not acted.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that in January 1949 he was given a seven years lease of about 380 acres of forest land in village Nibbookheda, which, by virtue of various orders, become a reserve forest -- "a forest village" and was in 1947, transferred from Khalsa or revenue charged land, to "Sarf-e-Khas" (the Ruler's private Jagir). The lease, according to him, was by a written patta given by the officer-in-charge of the Sarf-e-Khas, Forest Department, who could exercise the powers of the Conservator of Forest under the Bhopal Forest Act. It is also alleged that this patta itself was granted in pursuance of an order of the Nawab in exercise of his prerogative, but no such order is produced. The petitioner was to appropriate the forest produce, and ultimately bring the land under cultivation. The rent was to be increased by stages to. its poper level.

(3.) This was on the eve the eleventh hour--of the political changes in which the Nawab's Government vacated and the Government of India took over. In many Indian States public property was hastily settled or granted to people on the eve of the abolition of the Ruler's Government; but that by itself, is no ground for setting aside the settlement or the grant, if it was given by the proper authority acting under a law valid at that time. This is what the petitioner avers; further, that he had invested his money and labour in improving the land. The Collector, Sehore, in whose jurisdiction this village lies, reported under Section 38 of the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, recommending to the Revenue Commissioner that this settlement on the petitioner should be cancelled and the land taken over by the Government. The Revenue Commissioner passed a stay order at the first instance, and afterwards, heard the petitioner, and ultimately decided that the alleged settlement in favour of the petitioner should be set aside and the land taken over by Government. In the interval, he also took action under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, but since the lease was cancelled under the Land Revenue Act, they were not proceeded with. The petitioner's grievance is that he had a valid written lease, which, however, he refused to produce before the Commissioner; in any case, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction under the Bhopal Land Revenue Act, as this area was reserve forest.