BHANTABAI Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question involved in the instant writ petition is whether the grassland from which some Lac has been collected by proprietor amounts to cultivation of the proprietor and such land is saved from the vesting as per section 40 of M.P. Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) THE case has a chequered history; an application under section 57 was preferred by late Shri Bhikam Singh; present petitioners are the legal representatives of late Shri Bhikam Singh; it was prayed that Bhikam Singh's grandmother Smt. Chenabai, who was the proprietor of the village, has brought this land under cultivation after 1948-49 and as such, was entitled to have the land settled under section 40 of the Act. Initially the application was dismissed; matter travelled to the Board of Revenue; the Board of Revenue as per OrderP-1 dated 19.4.1973 remitted the matter back to the SDO for deciding the question 'whether growing of Lac amounts to bringing of land under cultivation within the meaning of section 40 of the Act'; as this aspect was not examined by the Revenue Courts and the matter was proceeded with on the ground that since land was not recorded in the name of proprietor after abolition, and application under section 57 (2) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code was made after considerable delay, it could not be allowed. Pursuant to the matter being remitted to the SDO, an order P-2 was passed on 3rd April, 1976; SDO has given two findings that in Khasra Panchsala for the year 1949-50 to 1952-53, area is recorded as grass in village Baroda and it was shown to be in possession of the proprietor by way of Lac cultivation. Finding has been given of continuous possession. As to the question whether the growing of grass amounts to cultivation, without discussing the evidence, the SDO came to the conclusion that growing of grass amounts to cultivation and petitioner is entitled for settlement of Khasra No. 240/1 in an area of 20 acres. The order P-2 was challenged before the Addl. Collector, Katni. The order passed by the SDO was affirmed; the orders of SDO and Addl. Collector were then assailed before the Addl. Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur. Addl. Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur, as per Order P-4 dated 30th December, 1977, held that growing of Lac does not amount to taking any steps to plough the land or making any other effort at all to cultivate it. Relying on a decision of this Court in State of M.P. v. Murlidhar Mulamchand, Firm [1961 JLJ 943 = 1961 MPLJ 729], it was concluded that as the land was recorded as grassland; land has vested in the State on abolition of proprietary rights. The revision filed by the villagers was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, late Shri Bhikam Singh preferred revision before the Board of Revenue. Board of Revenue held that land was grassland reserved for Nistar purposes and could not be settled with the applicants. Evidence has also been considered by the Board of Revenue; on consideration of the evidence, the Board of Revenue has come to the conclusion that there was no cultivation made, only grass was recorded, in remarks column, entry was of Lac.

(3.) SHRI H.S. Ruprah, learned senior counsel for petitioners, submitted that finding of possession recorded by SDO is based on Khasra entries. Growing of grass has to be taken as cultivation; in addition, his submission is that Board of Revenue remanded the matter for examining the question whether growing of Lac can be said to be cultivation. Finding was arrived at by the SDO on proper appreciation of evidence; that has been illegally interfered with by the Addl. Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. His further submission is that the matter could not be reopened at the instance of villagers by the Addl. Commissioner. In his submission, the interpretation put on section 40 of the Act is not correct. The remedy for the respondents was to file a civil suit if they were aggrieved by the order passed by the SDO and Addl. Collector.