CHHATAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law:

(2.) APPELLANTS -plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration and injunction claiming therein Bhumiswami rights on the khasra numbers mentioned in the . plaint on the ground that the land which has been recorded in their names in the khasra entries as 'Khudkasht' is exempted under the provisions of Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Their further contention in the plaint is that in the revenue record of Samvat 2007 their status over the lands has been recorded as "Khudkasht" and they are having their possession over the said land, therefore, it was further pleaded that by injunction 4he State be restrained not to dispossess them from the suit land. In the written statement the State Govt, denied the plaintiffs' claim and submitted that the aforesaid land was not under personal cultivation of the plaintiffs but it is recorded as Beed, therefore, by virtue of the provisions of the aforesaid Act the land vested in the Govt. and the plaintiffs are not entitled for any exemption or retention of the land. The trial Court after adjudicating the dispute between the parties dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 2.9.78 holding that the land is a Beed land and it has been recorded in the khasra entries as Beed land and the plaintiffs were not personally cultivating the same, therefore, they are not entitled for any declaratory relief. The trial Court relied on the decisions in the case of Khumansingh v. Dhansingh and others, reported in 1971 JLJ 577; Karansingh v. State of M.P. 1969 RN 258 holding that the land was not under personal cultivation of plaintiffs, therefore, it cannot be treated as Khudkasht land and u/s 4(2) of the Zamindari Abelition Act, 1951 the land stands vested in the State Govt. The first appellate Court has also dismissed the appeal on the aforesaid ground relying on the decision in the case of Bhanwarsingh Jawaharsingh v. State ofM.P. and others reported in 1975 JLJ 766 = 1976 MPLJ 38.

(3.) IT is admitted position on record that in the khasra entries the land has been recorded as 'Beed'. The submission of the learned counsel for appellants is that Beed land is also an agricultural land and raising of grass is also apart of agriculture activity. This Court in a number of decisions have already held that when the land was not in personal cultivation of Ex-Jagirdar and recorded in khasra entries as Beed the "Beed land" cannot be treated as 'Khudkasht land' as defined in section 2(c) by virtue of section 3 of the Act and the same vests in Govt. cannot be allotted to Zamindar, see 3995 RN 57 State of M.P. v. Kundansingh 1992 RN 378, 1985 RN 374 and 1997 RN 330. It has been further held in the case of Bahu v. State of M.P. reported in 1983 RN 392 that title claimed on the basis of land being Khudkasht land, not only the land has to be recorded as Khudkasht but it has also to be personally and actually cultivated, claim not supported by entries in revenue papers cannot be allowed. Therefore, since the matter is fully covered by the finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below the land in dispute has been recorded as a Beed in khasra entries and there is no evidence on record that in Samvat 2007 this land was under personal cultivation of the appellants. PW-1 himself admits that disputed lands were Beed lands and they were not under cultivation. It has been held that in such a case possession of the Zamindar shall be treated as of encroacher and he cannot become Bhumiswami under M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. The Division Bench of this Court has already held in the case of Bhanwarsingh Jawaharsingh v. State of M.P. reported in 1975 JLJ 766 = 1976 MPLJ 38, that two conditions are necessary that there must be entry in the revenue record about Khudkasht and that should be under the personal cultivation of ex-Zamindar in the year Samvat 2007, and the similar view has been held in the case of Khumansingh v. Dhansingh and others, reported in 1971 JLJ 577, therefore, the Ex Jagirdar is only entitled to retain the land on fulfilling the aforesaid two conditions. There is no entry in the relevant Khasras about the cultivation of the land and this is also not the case of the appellant/plaintiff, therefore, the matter stands concluded by the concurrent finding of facts of two Courts below and this legal question has already been answered by the Division Bench of this High Court.