LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. versus SETH BALKISHAN NATHANI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
l S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
793
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
v.
SETH BALKISHAN NATHAN! & ORS.
(K. SUBBA·RAo, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, and
J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.)
Land Reform-Execution of perpet«al patta and entrie8
in the subsequent Revenue R'cords-Recoynition as Pattadar and
oettlement of asoessments
by
Deputy Commissioner
Land
Refor11i11-Ni8tar Officer correcting records and reopening orders
of the Deputy Commissioner-Jurisdiction-The Madhya f'_radeoh
Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals,
Alienated
:Lands) Act, 1950 (Madhya Pradesh 1of1951), ••· 3 (2), 4 (2),
13 (1), 15 (1), 40-The Central Provinces Land Revenue
Act, 1947 (C. P. Act II of 1947) ss. 45 (1) (2) (4), 46,
47 (1) (2).
Respondent No. I in both the appeals was the proprietor
and lambardar of two Mouzas.
He executed perpetual l'attas
in favour of the other respondents.
With regard to one of the
Mouzas in the subsequent annual papers the 1{ouza was recorded
as occupanry Tenancy Holding of respondents 2 and 4 to 6.
Similar recordings were made with regard to the other Mouza
in the names of respondents 2 to 6. Thereafter the Madhya
Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals,
Alienated Lands) Act, 1950, came into force and under s. 3 of
the Act the estate of resp,ndent 1 was notified.
The Deputy
Commissioner Land Reforms acting under s. 40 of the Act
recognised respondent as the pattadar and settled the assess·
ment payable by him in respect of the first of the Mouzas.
Subsequently the Nistar Officer started
proceedings for
correction of old annual papers with a view to reopen the
earlier order made under s. 40. Respondent No. I raised an
objection that he had no jurisdiction tu do so which objection
was rejected. The appeal filed by the respondent before the
Revenue Board was also rejected.
With regard to the other
Mouza the Nistar Officer made an order that the transfers made
by respondent I was bogus and that the landlord was not culti-
vating the land. The respondents then filed writ petitions in
the High Court against the said two orders of the Nistar Officer.
The High Court held that the Nistar Officer had no power
either Ul'ldcr s. 15
(3)
of the Act or under s. 47 (I)
1963
January, 30.
1963
St.alt of Matihyo
Pratftih
v.
S11h BalkiJhan
JVathani
S•bbo n .. , J,
794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964) VOL.
of the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917. The prcaent
appeals are by way of special leave.
It was c.cntendec! before th i• CotJrt 1 hat (I) under s. 4 7 ( 1)
of the Land Rev<nue Act th• '.llistar Offcer had jurisdiction to
correct cntri~ made for earlier years in a subsequent year on
the ground of mistake and (2) the said officer has also juris-
diction to review under s. 15 (3) of the Act the order made by
him under s. 40 thereof.
Held, that neither s. 13 nor s. 15 (3) has any relevance
in the context of an order made by the Deputy Commissioner
under s. 40 thereof.
Section 47 (1) of the C,,ntral Provinces Land Revenue
Act does not cover a case of correction of the entries on the
ground of :mistake.
Mang/oo v. Board of R<ven?U, I. L. R. 1954 Nag. 143,
!lpproved.
Nistar Officer has no jurisdictivn to correct the entries
with a view to reopen the matter already closed under s. 40 of
the Act.
CIVIL APPELLATE Jc;RISDICTION : Civil Appeals
Nos. 370 and 371 of 1960.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment
and order dated March 8, 1956, of the former High
Court of Judica:ure at Nagpur (now High Court of
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur) in Misc. Writ Petitions
Nos. 22 and 274 of l95fi.
B. Sen and J. N. Shroff, for the appellants.
G. B. Pai, .J. B. Dadi1chanji, Ravinder Narain
and 0. C. Mathur, for respondents Nos. 2 to 6.
1963. January 30. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
S UllBA. RAo. ].-These two appeals by special
leave are filed against the common judgment of a
,.
: ..
(.
.•
·.
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
795
Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at
Nagpur .in writ petitions Nos. :!2 of 1955 and 274 of
1955 filed by respondents 1, 3 to 6 herein in the 1aid
court.
1963
Sta11 of Mad/i}
Pralhsh
. v.
Sith Balkishan
.Nat/umi
The facts in Appeal No. 370 of 1960 may be
.
stated first.
Respondent 1, Seth Balkishan Nathani,
Subba Raa,
11•
was the proprietor and lambardar of Mouza Sonpairi
in Tahsil and District Raipur. On January 14, 1947,
he executed perpetual pattas in favour of his wife,
Vashodabai, since deceaseExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.