MOHANLAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners state that they were the Malguzars of the village Parna and before the abolition of proprietary rights in the village under the Madhya Pradesh Act No. 1 of 1951, a field bearing Khasra No. 247 having an area of 130.40 acres was held on sir rights; that the bunded areas of the field were used for raising double crops and the non -bunded areas were utilized for one crop; that there was no tank in the field and no rights of Nistar or of irrigation of the village community; and that on 22nd October 1959 the Sub -Divisional Officer, Rajnandgaon, informed the petitioners that their tank in Khasra No. 247 having an area of 1.75 acres had vested in the State under Section 251 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, as from 6th April, 1959.

(2.) THE petitioners contend that the decision of the opponents vesting the land in question; which was never a tank is altogether illegal and was taken without giving them an opportunity of hearing. They pray that an appropriate writ be issued for quashing the decision about the vesting of the "tank" communicated by the order dated the 22nd October 1959 of the Sub -Divisional Officer, Rajnandgaon.

(3.) IT will be seen that under sub -section (1) there cannot be any vesting of a tank unless it is one which has not already vested in the State Government and is one over which the members of the village community were immediately before the coming into force of the Act providing for the abolition of the rights of intermediaries exercising rights of irrigation or Nistar. If these two conditions are satisfied, then the tank vests absolutely in the State Government as from 6th April 1959, that is to say from even before the coming into force of the Code. In the absence of any of these two conditions, there cannot be a legal vesting of a tank under Section 251 (1). The vesting takes place automatically when these conditions in respect of any tank are satisfied. No separate order to that effect is necessary. But that does not relieve the revenue authorities from satisfying themselves after an enquiry whether the conditions for vesting are satisfied in respect of any tank. It is true that Section 251 itself does not provide for any enquiry. But an enquiry into the question whether any land as a tank has vested in the Government under Section 251 is implicit in the provisions of Section 251. This is clear from sub -sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) about the determination and payment of compensation to the person owning an interest in the tank concerned. The Collector is empowered under sub -sections (3) and (4) to determine the amount of compensation and the persons entitled to receive it. The question of determination of compensation cannot arise unless it is first decided whether the "property" is a tank which has vested under Section 251 and is one in respect of which compensation is payable under that provision. If there is no vesting under Section 251 (1), then no question of payment of compensation can at all arise.