LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. versus SARDAR D. K. JADAV
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
i
F
G
H
,..
-\
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
v.
SARDAR D. K. JADA V
January 25, 1968
[J. C. SHAH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.]
Madhya Bharat Abolition of Ja~ir Act Sr.1m-at 2008 (Act 28 of 1951),
ss. 2(i)(ix). 3. 4, 5(c) and 17-Tanks and lvells clabned to be situated
on 'occupied lan<l'-Question ll'hether exen<ption under s. 5(c) applies-
Jssue whether can be decided ·hy Jagir Conrnzissioner under s. l 1-High
Court's duty in l"rit proceedings to decide jurisdictional fGct on· ·which the
co1npe1ency of adn1ini:arative authority depends.
On the issu·z of a notification under s. 3 of the Madhya Bharat Aboli-
tion of Jagirs Act Samvat 2008 (Act 28 of 1951 l aU the property in jagirs
including Jagjr lands, trees tanks etc. stood vf.'stcd in the State under
s. 4 of the Act.
Under s. 5(c) of tho Act all tanks. privat·e weUs etc. in
or on 'occupied land' as defined in s. 2(i) (ix) of the Act were excluded
from vestin~. The Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code 1959 (Act 20
of 1959) in s. 251 provided that all tanks as d<scribed therein whi0 h were
situated on unoccupied land and had not already vested in the State on~er
the Abolition Act would. vest ahsolutely in the State Government
with
effect from 6th April. 1959: the s~ction also provided for compensation
being paid in respect of such tanks.
Certain tanks belonging to the res-
pondent were treated as vested in the Stare Government.
At first he
claimed compensation for them. but later he also claimed before the
Revenue authorities that the tanks \\-'ere situated on 'occupied land' a11d
therefore under s. 5 ( c) of the Aholition Act they were exempt from the
vesting provisions.
The Revenue authorities having decided against him,
the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court.
The High
Court held that the question raised by the respondent under s. 5(c) should
he decided by !he Jagir Con1missioner undc'r s. 17 of the Abolition Act
and on this view quashed the orders of Revenue authorities.
The State
appealed. along with olher appellants.
HELD : (i) The High Court was in error in holding that s. f7 of
the Abolition Act was applicable to the case.
Section 17 is jncluded in Chapter III which deals with compensation
which Government is liable to pay to every jagirdar whose jagir land has
been resumed under s. ·3 of the Abolition Act. It follows therefore that
the inquiry made by the Jagir Commissioner under s. 17 on the question
of title is only for the purpose of enabling him to pay compensation to
the persons who in his opinion are entitled to receive it.
In other words
the inquiry by the Jagir Commissioner or the decision of the State Govern-
ment under s. 17 does not embrace within its scope any djspute as to
whethei any particular property falls within s. 4(1) (a) read with s. 5 of
the AboHtion Act and whether it has or has not in consequence .vested
in the. State Government by notification issued under s. 3 of. the Abolition
Act. [829 D-G]
{ii) However. if the respondent was right in .his contention that the
tanks and wells were constructed on 'occupied Iand' belonging to the,jagir-
dar within the meaning of s. 5 ( c) of the Abolition Act, it was manifest
that the appellants had no authority to take possession of those tanks and
wells because. the title therein did not vest in the State Government in view
of s. 5(c) which has an overriding effect on s. 4 of the Abolition Act.
824
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(196~] 2 s.c.R.
II was 1herefore the duty of the High Court in the present case to
decide the: jurisdictional 'fact as to whether the tanks and wells claimed
by the respondent belonged 10 the Jagirdar wi1hin tl>o meaning of s. 5(c)
of the Abolilion Act. and if the High Coun reached the conclusion that
the ciaim of the respondent was substantialed iL would be open to the
High Court ro 2rant a writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution directing
the appellants to hnnd over possession of the aforesaid tanks and wells
to the respondenl. [830 B-CJ
[Case remanded to the High Court accordingly.]
Ra v. Slwreditch Assessment Commiu~e (1910) 2 K.B.
859
and
White & Collin.• v. Minister of Hea/tli [ 1939) 2 K.B. 838. applied.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISOICTION:
Civil Appeals Nos. 1244
and 1245 of 1967.
A
B
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and orders dated
C
November 30., 1966 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
Pelition Nos. 184 and 183 of 1965 respectively.
B. Sen and /. N. ShrofExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.