SMT. GORABAI AND ORS. versus UMMED SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 385 · Decided: 19-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. VENKATARAMA REDDI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SMT. GORABAI AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
UMMED SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
APRIL 19, 2004 
[P. VENKATARAMA REDDI AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARl, JJ.] 
Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951-Section 2(c) 4(2) and 
41-Grant of/ease by proprietor to tenants for a period-Proprietor instituting 
eviction proceedings against tenant after the expiry of the lease-Act coming C 
into force and lands vested with State with benefit of retai[1ing of lands which 
are under personal cultivation-Entitlement of benefit-Held, on facts, the 
proprietor is entitled to benefit under the Act since on expiry of lease and after 
the initiation of eviction proceedings by the.proprieto.·, the .tenants are in 
unauthorised occupation of the lands and are deemed to be trespassers. 
Appellant-plaintiffs were proprietors/zamindars of the suit lands. D 
The suit lands were granted on lease to the respondent-defendan~s. On 
expiry of the lease in July 1951, the appellants instituted eviction 
proceedings before the Revenue Court which got abated for not 
substituting the legal representatives of one of the defendants. The Madhya 
Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951 came into force aboslishing all E 
proprietary rights of the proprietors and vesting in the State. Section 4(2) 
of the Act gave a benefit to the proprietor to retain possession of those 
lands which were in personal cultivation (Khud Kasht lands) before the date 
of vesting. Under Section 41 of the Act, tenants and proprietors holding 
Khud kasht lands are to be deemed to be tenants of the State Government F 
from the date of vesting. 
The appellants instituted a suit for eviction against the respondents. 
The lower courts and the High Court dismissed the suit of the appellants 
holding that they are not entitled to benefit under section 4(2) of the A.~t 
since on the date of vesting, the suit lands were in actual cultivating G 
possession with the respondents and not with the appellants; and that on 
the date of vesting, the suit lands were not shown in annual village papers 
as Khud kasht lands. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that the suit lands 
385 
II 
386 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A were shown as Khud kasht lands in the annual village papers before the 
grant of lease to the respondents; that for seeking retention of such lands, 
it is not necessary that such lands should be so re~orded in annual papers 
immediately preceding the date of vesting; that on the date of vesting, the 
lease granted to the respondents had already expired and the possession 
B of the respondents was that of tenants-at-sufferance or trespassers; that 
they had the right to possess on the date of vesting and that they were in 
constructive possession of Khud kasht lands; and that for giving the full 
benefit under section 4(2) of the Act, the possession of the tenant-at-
sufferance respondents should be ignored. 
C 
The respondent, raising a preliminary objection, contended that the 
suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of State as a party since after the 
Act came into force, the suit lands vested with the State; 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD: 1.1. The possession of the tenant after expiry of the term of 
lease is treated as unauthorised possession being against the consent and 
wish of the landlord. Such a tenant is railed a tenant-at-sufferance and 
his possession is deemed to be almost like that of a trespasser. On the 
expiry of the period of the lease and service of notice of eviction on the 
respondents, even though they are not actually evicted from the Khud kasht 
E lands, their possession would be deemed to be of trespassers and the lessor 
or the proprietor should be held to be legally and constructively in 
possession. Any cultivation by the tenant-at-sufferance against whom 
action was initiated to evict by the date of vesting should be deemed to be 
the cultivation of the proprietor himself. (393-D-F) 
F 
· 1.2. A restricted meaning cannot be given to give effect to the 
provisions of section 4(2) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 
1951. The benefit of the section cannot be denied to an ex-proprietor who 
has been illegally deprived of his right to possess and cultivate his Khud 
Kasht lands. In the instant case, the proprietor could not regain possession 
G of Khud Kasht lands for personal cultivation as the tenants, despite expiry 
of their period of lease, illegally continued in possession and the eviction 
proceedings in the Revenue

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