LexSHRIMANT SARDAR CHANDROJIRAO ANGRE versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-· SBRIMANT SARDAR CBANDROJIRAO ANGRE A v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADF.SR October 4, 1967 [J. C. SHAH ~ J. M. SHELAT, JJ.] Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act (Madh114 Bharat 28 of 1951), s. 5(b)(iv)-Grove, meaning of. B After the resumption of the appellant's J agir lands ID the State by the enactment of the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagln Act he claimed the mango trees, planted by him on both sides of a fong c road, as constituting a "grove" within the meaning of s. 5(b)(iv) of the Act, and therefore continued to belong to him. HELD: A grove irrespective of where it was situate, but belong- ing to or held by the jagirdar was to continue to belong to or to be held by him. To secure the full and proper use and enjoyment of such a grove, if it was on land other than that which was allowed to be retained by him, sub-clause (iv) of s. 5(b) further provides that D the land on which such a grove stood with the areas appurtenant thereto also shall be settled upon him in accordance with the M. B. Revenue Administration and Ryotwari Land Revenue and Tenancy Act Samvat 2007. The intention of the legislature appeared to be that properties which the jagirdar was in personal use and posseir- sion of or in respect of which he had paid valuable consideration were to be retained by him. [764 H; 765 A]. B The language of sec. 5(b) (iv) does not require that the tree. need be fruit-bearing trees nor does it require that they should have been planted by human labour or agency. But they must be suffi- cient in number and so standing in a group as to give them the character of a grove and to retain that character the trees would or when fully grown preclude the land on which they stand from being primarily used for a purpose other 'than that of a grove-land p Cultivation of a patch here and a patch there would have no slgni~ ficance to deprive it of its character as a grove. Therefore, trees standing in a file on the road side intended to furnish shade to the road would not fulfil the requirements of a grove even as understood in ordinary parlance. [766 C-E]. Darovadi v. Mannu Lal, A.I.R. 1929 All. ~7 Kashi v Jaaoo Bai Al.R. 1934 All. 290r... Shiv Sllhai v, Hari Nandan: A.I.R. 1003 All. 413: G llasan v. State of t>ombay, 62 Born. L.R. 617, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICilON: Civil Appeal No. 98 of 1965. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the December 7, 1961 of the Madhya Pradesh Hi11h Court (Gwalior Bench) in Civil Misc. Petition No, 77 of 1959. • B A. K. Sen, B. D. Gupta, Rameshwar Nath and Mahinder Narain, for the appellant. 1. N. Shroff, for the respondent. 761 762 SUPR1'~ME t:OUR'l' REPOR'l'S [19GK] 1 s.c·.n. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. The appellant is the ex-jagirdar of certain vil!:.:;c5 called Jagir Nevri Bhorasa. It appears that while the jagir was in his possession he had constructed roads one of which is the road con- necting Bhorasa with Dewas Astha Road. The road about 1 ! miles in length was lined on both sides with mango trees. In 1951 the B Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act, 28 of 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was passed for resumption of jagir lands in the State. Under that Act, the right, title and interest of the appel- lant in his said jagir were extinguished and the jagir lands vested in the State. In 1955. the Tehsildar put up the mangoes grown on the said trees for public a.uction. By his application dated Febru- 0 ary 8, 1955 the appellant objected to the said auction claiming that the said trees were planted and reared by him, that they constitut- ed a "grove" within the meaning of s. 5(b)(ivl of the Act and therefore continued to belong to him. The Tehsildar rejected the application .. The appellant's appeal and thereafter a revision before the Board of Revenue were also likewise rejected. The appellant D then tiled a writ petition in the High 'Court of Madhya Pradesh but that also was dismissed on the ground that the said trees could not be said to constitute a "grove". The appellant has filed this appeal after obtaining special leave. The only question arising in this appeal is whether the said trees standing on the two sides of the said road can be said to be a E "grove" within the meaning of sec. 5(b)(iv). The Act was passed for resumption of jagir-Iands in the State and to carry out certain land reforms in the jagir areas. Section 3 provides for the date o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.