CHENA ONKAR AHIR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will govern the disposal of Revisions Nos. 3277/59 and 1278/59 as in both of them the applicant is the same person and the point for determination is identical.

(2.) THE facts are that the applicant held possession of the disputed land under an unregistered mortgage deed. In the year 1944, proceedings for trespass under section 58 of the M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act were started against him, on the report of the patwari. The Tahsildar ejected the applicant with a fine and his order was upheld in successive appeals by the Collector and the Additional Commissioner.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicant brought to my notice the decision of the Board reported in 1955 Revenue Nirnaya, page 78, and Revenue Nirnaya, page 205. These two decisions are, unfortunately, self -contradictory. In the 1955 case it was held that an occupation, though prior to the commencement of the M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, can be removed under section 58 if it is found to be without lawful authority. In the 1956 case it was, however, held that in such cases section 58 would not apply. In Revision No. 75/58 decided on 10 -8 -59 the scope of section 58 again came up for consideration before the Board of Revenue and it was held that section 58 is applicable to unoccupied land belonging to the State, as also to such land in respect of which a person is deemed to be a trespasser under certain sections of the Tenancy Act, viz., sections 78, 86(3) and 91 etc. But this decision also does not seem fully to cover the point at issue in this case.