CHATTAR SINGH & ORS versus MADHO SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 3 S.C.R. 436 · Decided: 06-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA, NAVIN SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
436
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 3 S.C.R.
CHATTAR SINGH & ORS.
v.
MADHO SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8718 of 2012)
FEBRUARY 06, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951 – s.4(1)(a),
4(2) and 5(f) – Father of defendant nos.2 & 3 claimed that the land
in question be granted to him as it was recorded in his name before
the abolition of Zamindari Rights –  Plaintiffs filed suit inter alia for
declaration pleading that the suit land was recorded as ‘Charnoi’
i.e. common land used for grazing cattle by the villagers and it was
illegally given to the defendants – Trial Court decreed the suit –
Appellate Court reversed the same holding that it was a grove and
saved from the vesting u/s.5(f) – High Court reversing the  findings
of the Appellate Court held that the land was recorded as Charnoi
land and as such it vested in the State and it was not khud-kasht
land of the ex-proprietor – Held: In order to save the land from
vesting, s.4(2) requires land to be ‘personally cultivated’ by
Zamindar or through employees or hired labourers and another
sine qua non is that it should be so recorded in revenue papers as
“khud-kasht”, otherwise all land vest in the State as provided in
s.4(1)a) – Once the land is recorded as ‘Charnoi’, such common
land clearly vests in the State as provided in s.4(1)(a) – s.5(f) did
not confer any rights on Zamindars on such common land and did
not save the same from vesting, once it was recorded as ‘Charnoi’
for public purpose before the date of vesting in the year, 1950-1951 –
When land is primarily used for ‘Charnoi’ i.e. common grazing land
for cattle of villagers, it would not fall into the category of ‘grove’
and s.5(f) would not save such trees from vesting –  It cannot be
retained by Zamindar as he had no existing right on such land even
before date of vesting, it being common land, it belonged to villagers
– No individual can claim that such land belongs to him exclusively
– Trial Court rightly decreed the suit in favour of villagers – No
ground to interfere with the judgment of the High Court –
M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959.
[2019] 3 S.C.R. 436
 436
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
437
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 4, Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition
Act, 1951 makes it clear that all lands (cultivable, barren or bir),
forest, trees, village-sites, hats, bazars, mela-grounds shall vest
in the State automatically free from all encumbrances. Section
4(2) provides saving of only khud-kasht land, which is so recorded
in the Samvat year 2007 corresponding to the agricultural year
1950-51 before the date of vesting. The date of vesting is
2.10.1951. In order to save the land from vesting Section 4(2)
requires land to be ‘personally cultivated’ by Zamindar or through
employees or hired labourers and another sine qua non is that it
should be so recorded in revenue papers as “khud-kasht”,
otherwise all land vest in the State as provided in Section 4(1)(a).
Once the land is recorded as ‘Charnoi’ i.e., common land reserved
for grazing of cattles of villagers, such common land clearly vests
in the State as provided in Section 4(1)(a) all the land, the forest,
trees, village-sites, pathways etc. vest in the State absolutely.
Since the land was ‘Charnoi’ i.e., common grazing land for cattle
of the villagers having huge area 72 bighas 18 biswa the fruit-
bearing trees of custard apple also vested in the State.  The
provisions contained in Section 5(f) did not confer any rights on
Zamindars on such common land and did not save same from
vesting, once it was recorded as ‘Charnoi’ for public purpose
before the date of vesting in the year 1950-51 i.e., Samvat year
2007. [Paras 9-11] [443-B-G]
1.2 For “grove” to be recognized as such should be of such
trees when fully grown preclude land on which they are standing
from being used for a purpose other than that of grove-land. When
land is  used for ‘Charnoi’ i.e. common grazing land for cattle of
villagers, it would not fall into the category of ‘grove’ and provision
of Section 5(f) would not save such trees from vesting. The village
sites, comprise of common land reserved for villagers, vest in
State. It cannot be retained by Zamindar as he had no existing
right on such land even before date of vesting, it being common
land, it belonged to villagers. No individual can claim that such
land belongs to him exclusively.  The fruit bearing trees
irrespective of numbers have also vested in the State under
Sec

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