KHUMANSINGH SANDFIRSINGH Vs. DHANSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application of Khurnansingh, Ex-Zamindar of village Mahu, under Article 226 of the Constitution, for a direction to quash an order of the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, dated 20th March 1969, whereby it set aside an order of the Tahsildar, Pargana Basoda, dated 28th December 1960, passed under section 51 of the Madhya Bbarat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950, in exercise of its suo motu powers of revision, on the ground that the Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to pass the order, as the application for correction of the entries was barred by limitation.

(2.) THE facts have been stated by the Board of Revenue in great detail and we do not think it necessary to repeat them here

(3.) ON a comparison of these provisions, it will be clear that while under the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950, the record is the basis, under the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951, the emphasis is laid on personal cultivation. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Haji Sk. Subhan v. Madhorao,. 1962 MPLJ 265 (S CJ-A I R 1962 S G 1230 and Smt. Savitribaiv. The State of Madhya Pradesh, C, A. No. 12 of 1965 decided on 29-9-1967, have interpreted the scheme underlying the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950. In Haji Sk. Subhan's case (supra), their Lordships have laid down that the only condition requisite for the proprietor having certain land treated as his "home-farm" was the fact that the annual papers of the year 1948-49 recorded that land as Sir and Khudkasht. The basis was the record and not the fact of actual cultivation or his title to that land. In other words, the recorded entry was treated to be the basis for adjudging the land to be "home-farm". Following that view, their Lordships in Smt. Savitribai's case (supra) held that "fraud apart, the expression "recorded" means actually recorded and not what should have been recorded as "Khudkasht" ".