LexSTATE OF BOMBAY versus SAR,DAR VENKAT RAO KRISHNA RAO GUJAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
428
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1963]
1962
STATE OF BOMBAY
April 5.
v.
SAR,DAR VENKAT RAO KRISHNA RAO GUJAR
(A. K. SARKAR, K. SuBBA RAo and
J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.)
Abolition of Proprietary RigkUi-Settlement of aitea of
holrlings in abarli-Uncovererl ottas anrl chabutra•, whether
builrlinga-Builrlings, connotation of-M. P. Abolition of
Proprietary RighUi (Estates, Mahala, Alienaterl Lanrls) Act, 1950
(M. P. I of 1951), s. fi(a).
The proprietary interest of the respondent in his village
was abolished by the M. P. Abolition of Proprietary Rights
(Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950, and all rights,
title and interest were vested in the State bys. 4. Section 5(a)
of the Act provide that where any "buildings" belonging lo
the proprietor exist on any portion of the abadi land, that
land together with the land appurtenant to those buildings
shall be settled with the ex-proprietor. Land covered by ottaa
and chabutras on which sheds had been constructed was settled
with the respondent but not the land on which open uncovered
ottas and chabutras existed.
Held, that the respondent was entitled under section
5(a) of the Act to have the land on which uncovered ottaa and
chabutras existed, as also the land appurtenant thereto,
settled with him.
Uncovered ottas and chabutras fell within
the term "buildings" as used in s. 5(a). The provisions showed
that where the proprietor had spent money on constructing
something on an abadi site within the limits of the village sites,
that site had to be settled with him. Accordingly the word
"buildings" has to be given its literal meaning as S>mething
which is built.
Moir v. Williams, (1892) I Q. B. 217, Morri•on v.
Oommissioners of Inlanrl R•venue, (1915; I K. B. 716 and
Samuel Small v. Parkway Auto Supplies, 49 A. L. R. 1361,
distinguished.
CIVIL APPELLATK JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal
No. 455/59.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment
and order dated January 16, 1956, of the former
•
I S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
429
Nagpur High Court, in Misc. Petition No. 448 of
1954.
N. S. Bindra and D. Gupta, for the appellants.
Purshottam Trikamdas, G. J. Ghate and Naunit
Lal, for the respondents.
1962. April 6. The Judgment of the Court, was
delivered by
MuDHOLKA.R, J.-The respondC>nt was a pro-
prietor of mauza Bhivapur, Tehsil Umerer, District
Nagpur. His proprietary interest in the village was
abolished by the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Pro-
prietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands)
Act, 1950 (M.P. l of 1951 ). By virtue of s. 4 of the
Act, all rights, titks and interests, among others, in
all pathways, village sites, hats, bazars and melas
in Bhivapur vested in the State of Madhya Pradesh
for the purposes of the State free from all encum-
brances under s. 4(l)(a) of the Act.
Under the pro-
visions of th~ States Re-organisation Act, 1956
those rights vested in the State of Bombay and now
by virtue of Bombay He· Organisation Act, 1960 ( 11
of 1960) in the State of Maharashtra. The provi-
sions of s. 4(l)(a) are as follows:-
"All right~, title and interest vesting in
the proprietor or any person having interest
in such proprietary right through the proprie.,.
tor in such area including Jand (cultivable or
barren) grasEJ-land, scrub jungle, forest, trees,
fisheries, wells, tanks, pondA, waterchannels,
ferries, pathways, viJlage sites, hats, bazars
and me]as; ......... shall cease and be vested in
the State for purposes of the State free of all
encumbrances;· and the
mo1~g{l.ge debt or
charge or any proprietary :r1gh.t shaJI be a
charge on the amount of coznp"n1ation paya-
ble for such propriet:i.ry right to.·tbe proprietor
qnder the provisions of thfS''Act:''
J96B
Slat1 of Bombay
v.
S ardor .V enkat 1l ao
Krishna Rao Gf9ar
JI udholfcar J.
1962
Stele of B""ba)I
••
S1rdar V•llk•I R o
Kf"ishn.s Rae Gujar
Mudholkar J.
439
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]
After the Act came into operation proceedings
for compensation in respect of the village Bhivapur
were started in the court of the Compensation Offi-
cer, Umrer, in Revenue case No. 583/l·A-4/1950-51
decided on January 19, 1952.
The Compensation
Officer held that 0.14 acres of land out of Khasra
No. 61/l which is rec'orded in the village papers as
aOOdi wherein a bazar is held, should be settled with
the respondent under s. 5(a).
On a portion of the land which was used for
bazar, otf,as and chabutras, with or without sheds,
and separated by passExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.