RATANLAL Vs. MANNALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of the case are that the non -applicant No. 1 submitted an application for correction of village papers under section 51 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950. The Tahsildar rejected this application in the absence of any evidence. On an appeal, the Sub -Divisional Officer allowed the application and set aside the order of the Tahsildar. Against this order, a second appeal was preferred before the Commissioner which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain. Hence this revision. The following are the grounds of revision, amongst others viz: -

(2.) FROM perusal of the record of the lower Courts, I find that the non -applicant No. 1 put in an application for correction of entry in village record of Samvat 2003 to 2012, on the ground that he has been in possession of the land in question for about 5 years in lieu of service without paying any rent to the landlord and as such he be treated as Sikmi from Samvat 2008 and in Samvat 2012 his name should be recorded as Shikmi for 5 years. The copy of the 5 years khasra produced by the non -applicant shows his name in column 12 with the following description: - à ¤ µÃ  ¤ •Ã  ¥ Ã  ¤ ¤ à ¤ -à ¤ ¶Ã  ¥ Ã  ¤ ¤ à ¤ œÃ  ¤ ¾Ã  ¤ ¹Ã  ¤ ¿Ã  ¤ ° à ¤ ¹Ã  ¥ Ã  ¤ µÃ  ¤ ¾ à ¤ •Ã  ¤ ¿ à ¤ ¨Ã  ¤ ®Ã  ¥ Ã  ¤ ¬Ã  ¤ ° à ¤ ¹Ã  ¤ ¾Ã  ¤ œÃ  ¤ ¾Ã  ¤ ªÃ  ¤ ° à ¤ ®Ã  ¤ ¨Ã  ¥ Ã  ¤ ¨Ã  ¤ ¾Ã  ¤ ²Ã  ¤ ¾Ã  ¤ ² à ¤ œÃ  ¤ ²Ã  ¥ Ã  ¤ ¦ à ¤ ¨Ã  ¤ ‚à ¤ ¦Ã  ¤ ¾ à ¤ •Ã  ¥ ‹ à ¤ ®Ã  ¤ ¨Ã  ¤ ¾Ã  ¤ ˆ à ¤ •Ã  ¤ ¾Ã  ¤ µÃ  ¤ ¿Ã  ¤ œ à ¤ ¹Ã  ¥ ˆ à ¤ ''à ¤ ° à ¤ «Ã  ¤ ¸Ã  ¤ ² à ¤ ­Ã  ¥ € à ¤ ‰Ã  ¤ ¨Ã  ¥ Ã  ¤ ¹Ã  ¥ ‹Ã  ¤ ‚à ¤ ¨Ã  ¥ ‡ à ¤ ¬Ã  ¥ ‹Ã  ¤ ˆ à ¤ ¹Ã  ¥ ˆ | The Patwari of Circle No. 39 says in his statement that the name of the non -applicant is entered as Shikmi from Samvat 2010. This fact is not corroborated by the entry in Khasra. As is reproduced above the entry in Khasra only shows that the non -applicant is in possession. The non -applicant has not proved the ground upon which he relies. For instance he has said that he holds land from the applicants in lieu of service without any rent. From the records of the Tahsil Court, it is clear that the non -applicant is in possession. But what is the character of the possession, whether their relationship as tenant and sub -tenant exists is not proved either by oral or documentary evidence. The appellate Courts below have considered the factum of possession only and not the relationship. Now the question before me is whether the possession of the non -applicant No. 1 over the land constitutes him as Shikmi under the Law. In my opinion unless he establishes his relationship of sub -tenancy he cannot be mentioned as sub -tenant and his former status whatever it may be, will continue.