BHAGWAN DAS AND ANR. versus SARDAR ATMA SINGH

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 607 · Decided: 23-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

BHAGWAN DAS AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
SARDAR ATMA SINGH 
NOVEMBER 23, 1995 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
B 
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959: Sections 190, 260 and 
264. 
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. 
C 
Evacuee property-Land allotment:-Tempora1y sana~Subsequently 
made pennanent-Held sanad relates back retrospectively-Allottee clothed 
with Bhumiswami right-Lessee of such land held Bhumiswami-Successor-
in-interest of such a lessee having continuous possession-Held, entitled to 
retain possession. 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 
Section 11-Explanation VIII- Ap-
plicability of 
D 
The Agricultural land, which is the subject matter of this appeal, was E 
allotted to A under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation 
and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 by a temporary sanad on 27.4.1954 which 
was made permanent on 10.8.1965. As the father of appellant No. 1 was 
lessee of the land the appellants enjoyed possession of the same. However, 
after purchasing the land in question from A on 9.11.1966 the respondents 
unsuccessfully initiated proceedings under section 250 of the Madhya F 
Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 seeking delivery of possession. In 
second round of litigation also the suit filed by respondents claiming 
possession was dismissed. But in second appeal the High Court held that 
appellants had not acquired the Bhumiswami right and accordingly 
directed that delivery of possession be given to respondents. 
G 
In appeal to this Court on the questions whether (i) the appellants 
acquired Bhumiswami rights under the Code; and (ii) Section 264 could 
be pressed into service by the respondent : 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
607 
H 
A 
B 
c 
608 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
HELD : The ground given by the High Court to defeat the claim of 
the appellants is not sustainable. The contention that though A was given 
permanent sanad in 1965, yet it has to relate back to 1954 when temporary 
sanad had been given and there being continuity of possession, A for all 
purposes must be deemed to have become Bhumiswami in 1954 is well 
founded. If under the law A had become Bhumiswami, the appellants have 
to be conceded that status under section 190 of the Code. Therefore, the 
respondent could not have sought for possession. Thus the land should 
remain 'in the possession of the appellants, who are tillers of the land. 
Social justice itself would have required so. [609-G-H; 610-F; 611-A] 
Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair, [1994] 2 SCC 14, cited. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11068 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.5.95 of the Madhya Pradesh 
D High Court in S.A. No. 463 of 1986. 
E 
A. Subba Rao and A.D.N. Rao for the Appellants. 
G.L. Sanghi, Ms. Yogmaya Agnihotri and S.K. Agnihotri for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
HANSARIA, J. Leave granted. 
2. Appellants are tillers of the land. They are pitched against the 
F 
respondent (a retired Garrison Engineer), who is an absentee landlord. 
Their grievance is that the land, which is the subject- matter of this appeal, 
which has been in their possession for long, has been ordered to be 
delivered wrongfully to the respondent on his seeking the same by filling 
the present suit, after he had lost to get possession in a proceeding under 
G the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter 'the Code'). 
3. The case of the respondent is that the agricultural land in question 
was provisionally allotted to one Idnani under the provisions of the Dis-
placed Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 by issuing a 
temporary sanad on 27.4.1954. Admitted case of the parties is that father 
H of appellant No. 1, Ramnath was put into possession of the land by Idnani. 
BHAGWAN DAS v. ATMA SINGH [HANSARIA, J.] 
609 
According to the respondent, this had been so done because Ramnath was A 
employed as a servant by Idnani, whereas the case of the appellant is that 
Ramnath was a lessee. There is no dispute that on 10.8.1965, Idnani was 
given permanent sanad under the aforesaid Act. There is also no dispute 
that the land was sold to the respondent by Idnani on 9.11.1966. It is after 
the purchase that the respondent invoked section 250 of the Code seeking B 
delivery of possession, which petition came to be allowed by Naib Tahsil-
dar. The appeal by the first appellant's mother was allowed by Sub-
Divisional Officer. The respondent appealed against t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.