HEMDUTTA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner applies for a writ of certiorari for quashing an order of the Board of Revenue dated 25th November 1964, affirming the decisions of the authorities subordinate to it, whereby his application for conferral of bhumiswami rights, under section 246 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (20 of 1959), stands rejected.

(2.) THE facts leading to this petition, shortly stated, are these. THE petitioner, who is the ex-proprietor of mouza Ramtala, had instituted Civil Suit No. 102-A of 1956 for possession of a site in abadi against one Bhikari alias Narayan Prasad. That suit was dismissed by the Court of the Civil Judge, Bilaspur, on 15th February 1958. On appeal, the dismissal of the suit was set aside and his claim was decreed by the Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Appeal No. 9-A of 1958, dated 18th November 1958. That decree was, however, eventually reversed by Pandey J. in Bhikari alias Narayanprasad v. Hemdutta, S.A. No. 54/59, D/- 24-11-1960. This Court held that the site was an open abadi site and had thus vested in the State under section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (1 of 1951), and therefore the petitioner had no title to the land. It appears that while this appeal was pending in this Court, the petitioner secured possession of the site on 4th January 1959, in execution of the decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Bilaspur. On the strength of such possession, the petitioner applied to the Tahsildar, Bilaspur, for being declared as a bhumiswami of the land, under section 246 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. This application was rejected by the revenue authorities on the ground that the land having vested in the State, the petitioner could not be regarded as being "lawfully holding" the land, within the meaning of that section, on 2nd October 1959, when the Code of 1959 Was brought into force.

(3.) THE term 'lawful' no doubt has a wider meaning than the term 'legal'. 'Legal' is what is in conformity with the letter or rules of the law, as administered in the Courts; 'lawful' is what is in conformity with (or frequently not opposed to) the principles or spirit of the law, whether moral or judicial. In ascertaining whether an act is 'lawfully' done for another, the test applied by Straight and Mahmood JJ. in Chedi Lal v. Bhagwan Das, (1889) 11 All 234, was :