SETH RISHABH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was proprietor of village Manpura in Tahsil Damoh, District Damoh. In the said village there is a tank bearing Khasra No. 187, area 7.28 acres. After the abolition of proprietary rights, it appears that the said tank was treated as having vested in the State and the petitioner was excluded from its possession. THE petitioner claimed that the tank was settled with him under section 5 (f) of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (No. 1 of 1951) hereinafter referred to as the 'Abolition Act'. He, therefore, filed Civil Suit No. 57-A of 1958 in the Court of Civil Judge, Class II, Damoh, for declaration of his title to the tank and its possession. THE civil Court upheld the claim of the petitioner on the ground that as provided under section 5 of the Abolition Act the tank could not vest in the State and was saved for the use of the petitioner. Accordingly, the civil Court granted a decree for delivery of possession of the tank to the petitioner. THE petitioner took possession of the same on 22nd February 1959.

(2.) IN the year 1961, however, proceedings were initiated by the respondent No. 5 against the petitioner under section 251 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The petitioner contended before the respondent No. 5 that the tank had already vested in the State under the Abolition Act and that it could not again vest in the State under section 251 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. That claim of the petitioner was negatived by the respondent No. 5 and the petitioner's appeals and revision before the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 were unsuccessful. The petitioner has now filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the said order (Annexures 3 to 6) and also a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering with the rights and possession of the petitioner over the tank.

(3.) SHRI Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, drew our attention to the award prepared by the Compensation Officer wherein it is shown that the proprietary title in the tank vested in the State while the possession of the tank remained with the petitioner for which he was given a patta. He urged that the records had become final under section 15 (4) of the Abolition Act and that it was not open to the State to urge that the tank had not vested in the State notwithstanding the decision of the civil Court. We have already pointed out that the expression "vested" used in section 4 of the Abolition Act and the one used in the M. P. Land Revenue Code has not the same connotation. This contention must, therefore, fail.