MOTILAL AND ANR. versus NIYAZUDDIN (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 617 · Decided: 21-07-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

MOTILAL AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
NIY AZUDDIN (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
JULY 21, 2003 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
B 
Land Laws: 
Madhya Pradesh land Revenue Code, 1959; S. 158(l}(b}!Madhya Bharat 
Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007: Lands of the appellant taken C 
over by the State under Nigrani (supervision) for recovery of outstanding 
loan-State handed over lands to a cultivator-Respondent entered upon lands 
as tenant to the cultivator-Possession restored to owner after recovery-
Opposed by the respondent on grounds of possession of the lands for a long 
period and acquiring status of Pakka tenant thereon-Title suit filed by the D 
owner-Decreed by the Court-Affirmed by the First Appellate Court-
Reversed by the High Court-Title of the suit lands-Relationship between 
owner of the lands and the cultivator inducted by the State-Held: State by 
transferring possession of the lands to a cultivator for recovery of outstanding 
loan could not create any inter se relationship between owner and cultivator! 
tenant under provisions of laW-Such act of the State amounting to a coercive E 
action against the owner and not an act on his own volition-Cultivator! 
tenant had lost all rights to continue possession of lands after recovery of loan 
by the State. 
'Bhumiswami'-Meaning of in the context of Madhya Pradesh Land 
Revenue Code, 1959. 'Nigrani ', 'Shikmi tenant' and 'Pakka tenant '-Menaing F 
of in the context of Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 
2007. 
The State had taken over certain lands of the appellant under 
'Nigrani' (supervision) for recovery of loan outstanding against him. The G 
lands were given to a cultivator for realizing loan amount. In the 
meanwhile, cultivator had given the lands to respondent-tenant. After 
recovery of the outstanding loan by the State possession was restored tn the 
appellant. Respondent No.1 allegedly dispossessed him forcibly. Appellant filed 
a title suit which was decreed in his favour. On appeal, affirmed by the First 
617 
H 
618 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A Appellate Court, however, reversed by the High Court in the second appeal. 
Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The lands were taken in Nigrani by the government only 
B for the limited purpose of recovery of its outstanding loan advanced to the 
plaintiffs. This arrangement for recovery of loan through the supervision and 
management of lands by the government did not create any inter se relationship 
between the recorded owner and the person to whom the possession was given 
for cultivation. The High Court, therefore, was clearly wrong in coming to a 
C conclusion that the delivery of possession of the suit lands by the government 
to a cultivator and through him to defendant for recovery of loan was an act 
'for and on behalr of the recorded owner. (622-D-E( 
1.2. The defendant having obtained cultivating possession from a 
cultivator to whom government had given possession during Nigrani for 
D recovery of loan, does not fall in the definition of' Pakka tenant', 'Ordinary 
tenant' or 'Sub-tenant'. High Court was prima facie wrong in assuming 
relationship of tenancy between the recorded owners and defendant no. I. The 
handing over of land by the State to a cultivator for recovery of its loan was 
coercive action against the land owner and not an act on his own volition. Such 
action on the part of the State can create no relationship inter se of tenancy 
E between land owner and the cultivator who has been inducted by the State. 
Neither the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue and Tenancy Act 
nor the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code confer any status of 'tenant' or 
'Bhumiswami' on such a person who enters upon lands for cultivation during 
Nigrani period of the government. The conclusion drawn by the High Court 
F in favour of defendant No.I that he acquired right of 'tenant' is unsustainable 
in law. (623-H; 624-A-D) 
1.3. The Appellant also deserve to succeed on the basis of their title 
and right to claim possession from the contesting defendant who had lost 
all rights to continue in possession of the lands after the period ofNigrani 
G was over and the loan had been satisfied. Hence, the judgment of the trial 
Court and the First Appellate Court stand restored. [624-E-F( 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2231 of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.7.1994 of the Madhya Pradesh 
H High Court in C

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