VIMLA BAI CHOUDHARY Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 4. 10. 2001 by which the Board of Revenue allowed the revision of the respondent no. 5 and set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 28. 12. 1999.

(2.) THE facts in brief as stated in the writ petition are that the respondent no. 5 had moved the application dated 15. 11. 1984 before the Tahsildar under section 190 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code (for short 'the Code') stating that the petitioner who was the Bhumiswami of the land in question had given the land on lease for agricultural purposes in 1977 to the respondent no. 5 on 'munafa' of Rs. 1,000 and he continued in possession from 1977-78 to 1984-85 as Cultivator in possession in his capacity as 'munafedar', therefore, Bhumiswami rights accrued to him petitioner filed reply to the application denying the averments made in the application and taking the stand that the respondent no. 5 is his cousin brother and since the petitioner was suffering from diabetes and was taking treatment in Mumbai from 1977 to 1980, therefore, he had given the land to the respondent no. 5 for cultivation and no 'munafa' was received by him. The petitioner denied that any Bhumiswami right accrued to the respondent no. 5 under section 190 of the Code.

(3.) THE Additional Tahsildar passed the order dated 10. 12. 1986 holding that the rights of occupancy tenant had accrued to the respondent no. 5 under section 185 (1) (1) (c) of the Code. The Tahsildar also found that case of the petitioner did not fall under section 168 (2) of the Code since disability alleged by the petitioner was not proved. The Tahsildar finally held that since the rights of occupancy tenant accrued to the respondent no. 5 under section 159 of the Code, therefore, on deposit of the stipulated amount Bhumiswami rights would accrue to the respondent no. 5.