LexMAULANA SHAMSUDDIN versus KHUSHI LAL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G II 582 MAULANA SHAMSUDDIN v. KHUSHI LAL AND ORS. September 8, 1978 [N. L. UNTWALIA, S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.J Bilopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932, S. 2(15), ''uccupa11t", whetl1t'r includes Muafidars landlords. Madhya Prade.\11 Land Revenue Code, 1959, Ss. 185(1)(iv) (b) and 190, \._ effect on Shikn1is. .,( - The appellant was a Muafidar of the disputed land, in the erstwhile Bhopal State, while the first respondent cultivated the said lands as his tenant. When the M. P. L R. Code, 1959, came into force, the first respondent claimed that the appellant, as the occupant of the lands within the meaning of S. 2(15) of the BhopaJ State Revenue Act, 1932, had become a Bhumlswami u/s. 158(C) of the Code of 1959, while he himself had become an occupancy tenant u/s 185.( 1) (iv) (b) and as such, ·was entitled to ronferment of Bhumi· swami rights u/s 190 of the same Code. He applied to the Tahsildar, Huzur,. for mutation of his name as a Bhumiswami in the Revenue records, and was directed to deposit compensation equivalent to 15 times of the land fevenue. Thereafter his name was recorded as a Bhumiswami of the holdings, on the deposit of the compensation money. The Mualidar appellant's appeal to the Sub- Divisiooal Officer, aga:inst the Tahsildar's order, and a second appeal to the Additional Co1nmissioner, were dismissed, but the Board of Revenue allowed his revision application, holding that he was not an occupant withiri the mean- ing of S. 2(15) of the Bhopal Act of 1932, and that consequently the first respondent waB neither a Shik.mi, nor did he become an occupancy tenant under the M.P. OXle of 1959, and therefore, conferment of Bhumiswami rights on him was erroneous in law. The first respondent filed a writ petition against the Revenue Board's Order, which was allowed by the lligh Court. Dismissing the appeal by certificate, the Court HELD: I. Under S. 2(15) of the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act 1932, a person who holds land direct under the: Government, would be a-n "occupant", in whatever name the payment of money may be described such as premium~ rent, quit-rent etc. On a careful analysis of the definition, it is legitimate to conclude that a Jagirdar or Muafidar is an occupant. He holds lands under the Government, on the resumption of the Jagir or the Muafi rights by the Government, the land reverts back to it. Payment of land revenue or rent for holding land under the Government was not a sine-qua-non for making the holder of the land an occupant. [585 A-D, 586 DJ • Begun1 Suriya Rashid' and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1969] 1 SCR 869 held inapplicable. 2. The rights of Shikmis were enlarged by operation of the Madhya Pra- desh Land Revenue Code, 1959. Under section 185(1) (iv)(b) a Shikmi became an occupancy tenant, while u/s 190, as an occupancy tenant, he became entitledT under certain conditions, to conferment of Bhumiswami right<; of the occupant of the holdings. [587 F, 588 A-BJ • " MAULANA SHAMSUDD!N v. KHUSHI LAL (Untwalia, I.) 58 3 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2295 of 1968. From the Judgment and Order dated 3-2-1967 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 26 of 1966. Harbans Singh for the Appellant. A Raghwwth Singh and Manojswanip for Responuent No. I. B S. K. Gambhir for Respondents 3-5 and 7. U. P. Lalit, B. P. Maheshwari and Sureslt Sethi for Respondent No. 6. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UNTWALIA, J. In this appeal by certificate granted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court the question of law which falls for our determina- tion is whether conferral of Bhumiswami rights on Shri Khushi Lal, respondent No. 1 in respect of the lands in question in accordance with Section 190 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, herein- after referred to· as the M.P. Code of 1959, by the Revenue Authorities i< correct and sustainable. Maulana Shamsuddin, the sole appellant in this appeal, was a Muafidar in the erstwhile State of Bhopal of the disputed lands in accordance with the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932 (for brevity, the Bhopal Act of 1932). The first respondent claimed to be a Shikmi ot the appellant in respect of the lands in question. His case was that the appellant was the occupant of the lands within the meaning of the Bhopal Act of 1932. On the coming into force of the M.P. Code of 1959, the appellant became a Bhumiswami un
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.