STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUEGWALIOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will also dispose of Miscellaneous Petition No. 1051 of 1981. This case illustrates how unimaginative and casual (we refrain from using the word mala fide) execution of land reforms legislations by revenue officers cannot only completely defeat their object but can also burden the State with enormous financial liabilities for which it is really not liable.

(2.) One Hariprasad Naik was proprietor of village Shivpuri in Raigarh District. The proprietary rights were abolished by the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950, with effect from 31st March 1951 which was the date of vesting under the Act. The consequences of vesting are given in Section 4 of the Act which, like any other similar Act. vests in the State free from all encumbrances all rights, title and interest of the proprietor in the land of a proprietary village including grass land, scrub jungle, forest etc. A proprietor was allowed to retain in his possession, as provided in Section 4 (2), only homestead and home-farm land. It appears that village Shivpuri was essentially a forest area and in the normal course almost the entire village ought to have vested in the State. But surprisingly very large areas comprising of forest were allotted in Bhumiswami rights not only to the ex-proprietor Naik but also to his wife, wife's sister and wife's sister's daughter. The lands which came to be held by Naik and his relatives in Bhumiswami rights in Shivpuri after abolition are as follows : (1) Hariprasad Naik, Khasra no. 12, area 496.76 acres. (2) Krishna Kumari (wife's sister of Hari prasad), Khasra Nos. 30 and 39. area 183.32 acres. (3) Sitarani, w/o Hariprasad, Khasra Nos. 36, 27 and 28 area 245.00 acres. (4) Tarlika Kumari, d/o Krishna Kumari, Khasra no. 11, area 76.73 acres.

(3.) After the coming into force of the Madhya pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, four ceiling cases were initiated in respect of the aforesaid holders. The ceiling case in respect of Naik was Case No. 178/8/90-B/63-64. The Competent Authority by order dated 19th July, 1972 (Annexure P-25) held that the holder was entitled to retain only 90 acres and declared 406.76 acres as surplus. The ceiling case in respect of the holding of Krishna Kumari was Case No. 4/A-90-B/1969-70. The Competent Authority by order dated 6th July 1972 (Annexure P-27) allowed the holder to retain 105 acres of land and declared 78.32 acres as surplus. The ceiling case in respect of Sitarani was Case No. 3/A-90-B/19G9-70. This case was also decided bv the Competent Authority on 7th July 1972 (Annexure P-26). The holder was allowed to retain 75 acres of land and 170 acres were declared as surplus. The case concerning Tarlika Kumari was Case No. 1/A-90-B/1969-70 which too was decided by the Competent Authority on 7th July, 1972. In this case the holder was allowed to retain the entire area of 76.73 acres. The orders of the Competent Authority in these ceiling cases were maintained in the appeals filed by the holders to the Collector and the Additional Commissioner which were dismissed on 23rd March 1974 and on 17th May 1975 respectively. The result of these railing cases is summarised as follows: Holder Land allowed to be Surplus retained. declared. Hariprasad 90 acres 406.76 acres Naik Krishna Kumari 105 acres 78.32 acres Siarani 75 acres 170.00 acres Tarlika Kumari 76.73 acres 6.00 acres