BENIPRASAD TANDON Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will govern Appeals Nos. 215, 244 and 245/IX -I/55 arising out of lower Court's order in Rev. Case No. 16/IX -I/51 -55. The facts of the ease are very lucidly given in the order of the lower Court. Briefly speaking, the case of the Appellants is that by virtue of a deed dated 8 -6 -48 they were recognised as plot -proprietors of certain areas in village Madhotal, district Jabalpur. Their names were also recorded in the village khasra and they have since been paying rents accordingly. The Additional Deputy Commissioner -Cum -Nistar Officer, Jabalpur, by his order under appeal discarded the aforesaid deed as invalid and held that the disputed land was liable to vest in the State. He, however, made some exception in the case of Narmada Cotton Mills Ltd. Appellant in appeal No. 244 /55 and allowed 13.05 acres to be retained by the Mills because this area had already been built upon and in accordance with Land Reforms Department Memo. No. 877 -2506/XXVIII, dated 13 -5 -54, the said area of 13.05 acres had to be settled with the occupier and assessed at the prescribed rates.

(2.) On behalf of the Appellants, Shree R.M. Hazarnavis, contended that the order under appeal was justified neither by the C.P. Land Revenue Act nor by Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act. According to him Section 47 (1) of the Land Revenue Act, under which the order under appeal was passed, would not be applicable and the Nistar Officer -cum -Additional Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to interfere with the rights of the Appellants as per decision of the High Court in Balkrishna Nathani v. State, 1956 NLJ 370. The Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act also would not apply because it had nothing to do with plot -proprietors, which the Appellants claimed to be. the Act being restricted in its application to Mahals and estates only. Shri Hazarnavis, therefore, argued that the impugned order was without jurisdiction and deserved to be set aside.

(3.) It is true that in view of the High Court's decision in Balkrishna Nathani's case Section 47 (1) would not apply to the facts of this case but it would not be correct to say that the order in question could not be passed under the C.P. Land Revenue Act. As I see it, the case of the Appellants is that they bad acquired plot -proprietorship over the disputed area and were thus entitled to be declared malik -makbuza thereof. It may be mentioned that 'plot -proprietor' is not a recognized term under the Revenue law as such. The term 'plot -proprietor' does not find place in the various tenures that have been referred to or defined in the Land Revenue or Tenancy Acts. In fact the 'plot -proprietor' is an anomalous term and that is why Government in their instructions contained in the Revenue Book Circular, Chapter I, Section 11 have directed that wherever existence of such plot -proprietors is discovered, steps must be taken by the Deputy Commissioner to declare them malik -makbuza under Section 106 (1) (c) read with Section 67 of the Land Revenue Act. Plot -proprietors come into existence when a plot of land in a Mahal is transferred by the malguzar in proprietary rights to a person who has no share in the proprietary profits of the Mahal. As has been observed in the Revenue Book Circular I -11, " such separation could only be effected by a perfect partition or by his (transferee) being declared a malik -makbuza under Section 67 of the Land Revenue Act. Legally, therefore, the transferee becomes jointly or severally responsible for the land revenue of the mahal even if no mutation case is opened and his name does not appear in the mutation register ". Under the above instruction of the Revenue Book Circular whenever a case of plot -proprietor is brought to the notice of a revenue officer he has to examine the transfer -deed to satisfy himself if there has actually been a transfer of proprietary rights. If he is so satisfied further action has to be taken under Section 67 of the Land Revenue Act.