BABULAL Vs. GENDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a letters patent appeal from the order of Mudholkar J. in Miscellaneous petition No, 420 of 1954

(2.) THE dispute is in respect of khasra Nos. 1157, 1579, 1255, 1581, 1589 and 1884, having a total area of 4.87 acres, situate in mouza Kuriyari, tehsil Jangir, district Bilaspur. These fields formed the occupancy holding of Rangnath, father of respondent No. 1 and were recorded in his name in the last settlement. On his death, the fields were mutated in the name of his son Dhaniram who died sometime in 1945 -46. Respondent No. 1 is his real brother.

(3.) IN Mangloo vs. Board of Revenue (supra), it was held that the question whether the corrections made in the annual papers on the ground that the entries were mistaken was not covered by section 47 (1) of the C. P. Land Revenue Act 1917, and as the corrections do not affect any legal rights, they cannot be questioned in a Court of law. That was, however, a case under the C. P. Land Revenue Act. The present case, on the other hand, falls under the M. P. Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950, and is, therefore, covered by the Full Bench decision of this Court in Balkishan vs. State of M. P. 1956 N.L.J. 370. Section 45 of the said Act provides that any person who immediately before the date of vesting was in possession of any holding as an absolute occupancy tenant or an occupancy tenant shall, on and from the date of vesting, be deemed to be a tenant of the State and shall hold the land in the same rights and subject to the same restrictions and liabilities as be was entitled or subject to immediately before the date of vesting. Village papers are inclusive evidence of possession and, therefore, the entries made therein are liable to affect the rights of the parties under Section 45. Accordingly an order, either accepting or rejecting a claim for mutation or for correction the entries would, if it affects the question of possession immediately before the date of vesting, be referable to Section 45. In such a case, the order would be appealable under Section 84.