STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus SHIV KUNWARBAI ETC.

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 407 · Decided: 20-04-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF MADRY.<\ PRADESH 
11. 
SHIV KUNWARBAI ETC. 
April 20, 1971. 
[S. M. SIKRI, C. J., G. K. MiTrER, K. S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVB!I. 
AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.] 
Madhya Pradsh Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1952, JJ. 3 and 
4-Eviction can be only from 
Governmenr· premises-Former ruler oJ 
Indian State claiming certain properties to be hi• private property-Accep-
tance of hi~ claim in respect of some of these propertieJ does not mean 
that the properties in respect of which the claim ha.t not been accepttd 
become property of Government. 
The ruler of the erstwhile State of Jhabua granted jagirs to N and R. 
The Jagirs were forfeited in 1943. 
On March 30, 1948 tho Ruler mado 
sn order purporting to declare a large number of immovable properties, 
including certain houses in the occupation of N and R as his private proper-
ties. On April 1, 1948 the Ruler made another order purporting to grant to 
N and R the right to continue to occupy the said houses during their life 
time without any right to sell, mortgage or create any charge thereon. On 
June 29, 1948 the State of Jhabua merged in the State of Madhya Bharat. 
The Government of the State of Madhya Bharat did not recognise 
the claim of the erstwhile Ruler of Jhabua to all the properties 
claimed by him 
as his private properties. The properties in 
the 
occupation of N and R were among those not recognised as the Ruler's 
private property. The possession of N on the Properties in her occupation 
was not disturbed in her lifetime. On April 30, 1962 the Executive Engi· 
neer District Dhar, submitted an application under s. 3 read with s. 4 of 
the Madhya Pradesh Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1952 for the 
eviction of R and the successor·in· interest of N from the properties res· 
pecfjveiy occupied by them. Orders of eviction made by the Sub·Divisional 
Officer were upheld by the Collector in the appeals filed before him. The 
High Court however allowed tho writ petitions filed by N's successors-in· 
interest and by R and quashed the orders of eviction against them. The 
State of Madhya Pra~esh appealed. 
HELD: The appeal must be dismissed· 
407 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
The evidence showed that some only of the properties set forth in 
the declaration of April, I, 1948 and claimed by the Ruler as private 
property "were accepted as such" by tho Government of Madhya Bharat: 
there was no finding with regard to the others that they appertained to 
G 
the Ruler as distinct from his private properties. In order to succeed tho 
appellant had to show that the properties had been confiscated by tho Ex· 
ruler and bad ceased to belona to N aild R. [4101!-GJ. 
As the properties originally belonaed to N and R there mnst be some 
~idence of the displacement of their title before the Eviction Act could 
be made applicable to them. The order of April 1, 1948 passed by the 
Ruler could not be interpreted as an order of conliscation. It wu not 
H 
proved that tho ownership of the properties bad passed to the Ruler and 
thereafter fint to tho State of Madhya Bharat and then to tho State of 
Madhya Pratlelb. [4.lOO,.JQ. 
SUPREME COURT RBPORTS 
[1971] SUPP. s.c.R. 
.l 
In order to enable Go•,.rol!ieilt to take ptoceedings successfully under 
either s. 3 or 4 of the Act, it must satisfy the Court that the premises iD 
respect whereof action was taken was Government premises. As the State 
failed to establish thlS fliet. thCS question of eviction under the Act could 
never arise. [411B]. 
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1164 
Ji 
and 1165 of 1967. 
Appeals from the judgment and order dated December l, 1965 
of the Madhya Pradesh. High Court, Indore Bench in Misc. Peti-
tion Nos. 18 and 19 of 1%4. 
· 
M. S. K. Sastri, M. N. Shroff for I. N. Shroff, for the appel-
C 
!ant (in both the appeali.). 
E 
F 
G 
H 
B. R. L. Iyengar, R. A. Gupta and K. B. Rohatgi, for the 
respondent (in C. As. No. 1164 of 1967). 
P. C. Bhartari, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur and Ravinder 
Narain, for the respondent (in C. A. No. 1165 of 1967). 
The 1 udgment of the Court was delivered by 
Mitter, J~ 
The St1te of Madhya Pradesh has come up in ap-
peal to this Court from two orders of the State High Court allowing 
two writ petitions filed by the two respondents herein for quashing 
the orders of eviction made against them under Section 3 of the 
Madhya Pradesh Govemmen Premises (Eviction) Act. 
The facts in Civil Appeal No. 1164 of 1967 are as follows. 
Many years back, a former Ruler o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.