HIRAKUMAR THAKUR JAIPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made initially by a learned single Judge and thereafter by a Division Bench by orders dated 28-1-1997 and 4-4-1997 respectively for considering the correctness of the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in State of M. P. vs. Board of Revenue, 1983 mpu 148 = AIR 1983 M. P. 111.

(2.) THE background facts which have led to the reference are that a case under the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act of 1960') was instituted against the petitioners before the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Competeht Authority, Pipariya. The Competent Authority published a draft statement in the said ceiling case and the petitioners raised objections with regard to Survey Nos. 76/1 and 239/4 contending that there were big trees standing on the land and that the land was not agricultural land and cannot be declared ceiling surplus under the Act of 1960. After spot inspection, the Competent Authority found the land to be agricultural land and declared the land to be surplus. Against the order of the Competent Authority, the petitioners filed appeal before the collector, Hoshangabad, who dismissed the appeal. The petitioners thereafter filed revision before the Additional Commissioner, Hoshangabad who also dismissed the revision. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a second revision (Revision No. 58-5/84) before the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior and contended that the land was shown as jungle in settlement papers and there was natural forest on the land and, therefore, the land should not be treated as agricultural land.

(3.) THE respondents, on the other hand, contended before the Board of revenue that whether a land was agricultural land or not was a question of fact and all the authorities have recorded a concurrent finding that the land was agricultural land. The respondents further contended before the Board of revenue that it will be clear from the finding that some portion of the land has been cultivated and the remaining portion of the land also could be brought under cultivation and, therefore, it has to be treated as agricultural land and the land cannot be treated as non-agricultural land. The Board of Revenue, after taking into consideration the aforesaid contentions, rejected the revision petition of the petitioners after holding that all the authorities have given a concurrent finding of fact on the point that the land was agricultural land and at the stage of second revision, there was no reason to interfere with the order. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the order of the Board of Revenue dated 18-3-1985 are quoted hereinbelow :