RAVINDRA PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal Nos. 11, 12 and 13/IX -I/56 arise out of a common order passed by the Nistar Officer -cum -Additional Deputy Commissioner, Raipur, in his corresponding Revenue Cases Nos. 119 and 118/IX -I/53 -54 and 365/IX -I/ 54 -55, respectively. The points that arise for consideration in all these cases being identical, this order will govern all the aforesaid appeals.

(2.) During the course of Nistar inquiry the Nistar Officer -cum -Additional Deputy Commissioner came to examine certain transactions of land made by the ex -proprietor of village Tikrapara in favour of his close relations such as sons, nephews and grandsons. After inquiry the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner came to the conclusion that the transactions were either bogus or invalid or otherwise unenforceable. Barring, therefore, certain transactions, which are noted in list B enclosed with the order under appeal, he directed that the lands covered by the leases should vest in the State as per list C enclosed with his order.

(3.) The contention of the appellants is that they were valid tenants on the date of vesting and their claims to the disputed lands are covered by section 45 (1) of the M. P. A. P. R. Act. For the sake of convenience I would classify the transactions in question into two categories as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_297_TLMPH0_1957.htm</FRM> The transactions in category I above, suffer from the defect that no declaration in respect of them was obtained by the appellants or the ex -proprietor as required under section 6 (2) of the M. P. A. P. R. Act. The learned lower Court has no doubt discussed the matter but it has to be pointed out that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the bona fide of the transactions unless an application to that effect was made either by the transferor or by the transferee under section 6 (2) Ibid which reads as follows: 6 (2). Where on the application of the transferor or the transferee, the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied that any transfer of property referred to in sub -section (1) was made by a proprietor in good faith and in the ordinary course of village management, he may declare that the transfer shall not be void after the date of vesting.