DARYAOSINGH GIRDHARI Vs. PYARELAL GYARSILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this petition are few and simple. Petitioner Daryaosingh had held lands, which are the subject -matter of this petition, as Gair Maurushi Khashtakar from opponent No. 1 Pyarelal who was the Zamindar of the village Bhardi (District Shajapur) where the lands are situate. Pyarelal later obtained a decree for ejectment against the petitioner on 16 -5 -1948 on the ground that the said land was required by him for personal cultivation as he had not in his possession 40 Bighas of land permitted by law for the purpose. This was done by him in pursuance of the provisions of sections 318 and 319 of the Qanoon Mal. However he after obtaining petitioner's ejectment did not act to his representation that the land was needed for his personal cultivation and led it out to opponent No. 2 Isharsingh. Under section 319 -A of the Qanoon Mal the petitioner could take proceedings in these circumstances for possession of land for cultivation in the same capacity in which he had held the same earlier i.e. as a Gair Maurushi Kashtakar subject to payment of rent which he used to pay in the past. This he did on 6 -10 -1951. But prior to this Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act was passed. In pursuance of the provisions of the said Act on 3 -9 -1951 a Notification No. 5710 was issued and published in the Madhya Bharat Government Gazette dated 7 -9 -1951 notifying 2 -10 -1951 as the date of vesting as referred to in section 3(1) of the Act as a result of which all proprietary rights affected by the Act passed to be vested in the State.

(2.) THE suit filed by Daryaosingh subsequent to the date of vesting i.e. on 6 -10 -1951 against Pyarelal and Isharsingh under section 319 -A of the Qanoon Mal for restoration of his former status and for possession of the land succeeded in the Tehsil Court.

(3.) HE petitioner now has approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the aforesaid decision of the Board of Revenue on the ground that on a correct appraisal of the provisions of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act read in light of the principles of statutory construction as regards the retrospectively of a statute with reference to vested rights, his suit was maintainable and that the view taken by the Board of Revenue was erroneous and involved an erroneous refusal to exercise jurisdiction which, in fact existed.