PANCHAMSINGH Vs. RAMKISHANDAS GURU RAMDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against an order under Section 248 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, for the eviction of the petitioner from 199 Bighas 11 Biswas of Muafi lands on the ground that he is in unauthorised occupation thereof.

(2.) THE material facts, shortly stated, are as follows: there is a temple of Shri Ramji and Shri Hanumanji situate in Gangabaika-Bagicha in Dholpur on the Gwalior-Agra road. During the mutiny of 1857, Maharaja Jayajirao Scindia of Gwalior halted at Dholpur while on his way to Agra and was pleased to endow 300 Bighas of lands in muafi for the upkeep of the temple by a Sanad. The muafi grant was resumed in the year 1939, by the Gwalior Darbar, and the former Pujari, Mahant dwarkadas, was granted a Parwana under Section 13 of the Kawaid maufidaran, in respect of 199 Bighas 11 Biswas of Muafi lands. On 15-61949, thakur Murlidharsingh, the father of the petitioner, obtained the lands on a sub-lease, on a premium of Rs. 230/- per annum, from the former Pujari, Mahant Dwarkadas. Mahant Dwarkadas having died in the year 1954-55, the non-petitioner No. 1, Mahant Ramkishandas, who succeeded to the office of Mahant, started proceedings for mutation of his name. On 6-4-1957, Thakur Murlidhar Singh also died and thereupon the petitioner got into possession of the lands. By order dated 30-81961, the Collector, Gwalior, ordered mutation in favour of the non-petitioner No. I, Mahant Ramkishandas, who thereafter applied under section 248 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, for ejectment of the petitioner from the Maufi lands on the ground that he was in unauthorised occupation of the same.

(3.) THE Naib-Tahsildar, by order dated 30-7-1964, ordered that the petitioner be ejected from the maufi lands and asked to pay a penalty of Rs. 4,441. 58 for being in unauthorised occupation. On appeal, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dabra, by order dated 23-11-1964, upheld the order of ejectment but remitted the penalty. On further appeal, the Additional Commissioner affirmed the order of ejectment under section 248 (1 ). Their decisions were affirmed by the Board of Revenue by its order dated 6-10-1969. The Sub-Divisional Officer was of the view that the lands were recorded as Milkiyat Sarkar under the Aukaf Department and were meant for the upkeep and Puja of the temple and that the Pujari was appointed to look after them. That view of his was affirmed by the Additional Commissioner who held that the lands belonged to the Government and were under the management of the aukaf Department. The Board of Revenue held that the lands were Government lands set apart for specific purpose, i. e. , for the maintenance of the Dcvasthan, that the status of the Pujari was merely that of a Manager appointed by the Aukaf department, on the terms and conditions of the Parwana, and that he held no tenancy rights under the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act.