LexTHE ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER versus YESHWANT MADHAO MAHAJAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
11111
Tr;mkl. DamMilurr
Ro·j>inkaF
..
Anaram Hir01Mnl
Patti
IHI
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
on another decision of this Court in Sakharam alias
Bapu.saheb Narayan Sa1UJ8 v . . Mcmikchand Motichand
Shah (' ).
In that case the Court was called upon
to consider the question as to whether the provi-
sions of ft. 88 of Bombay Act LXVII of 1948 were
retrospective in operation or not, and it has been
held that the said provisions are prospective. How-
ever, we do not think that the position with regard
to the provisions contained in s. 88 can be said to
be analogous or similar to the position wit.h regard
to the relevant provisions of the amending Act
XXXIII of-1952 with which we are concerned in
the present appeal. Therefore, we do not think
that Mr. Bengeri can make any effective use of the
said decision.
In the reb11lt t.he appeal fails and is dismissed
with costs.
Appeal di8111illsed.
THE ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT
COMMISSIONER
v.
YESHWANT MADHAO MAHAJAN
(K. N. WANCHOO and J.C. SH.AH, JJ.)
Abolition of Propritf4ry Right.-Land lying faUoUJ-When
to ic regarrb.d aa 'horn. farm '-Madhya l'raduh Abolilwn of
Pr<>pri.14ry Right. ( E•lalu, Mahala, Alienated Land.) Act,
1961 (Madh. l'ra. 1of1961), u. 2, 4.
In 1947 S conveyed by a sale deed to M an undivi<kd
half share of Land in his village. On the same day S execut-
ed a Kabulayat for 5 years in respect of the same land for
cultivation. In 1951 the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of
Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act,
1951, came into force and the Compensation Officer started
enquiry about assessment of compensation.
M claimed to
retain possession of the half share in all the fallow lands in
the village which had been lca.cd by him for cultivation to
Son the pica that thc.c lands were •home farm'. The claim
(ll [1962] 2 S, C.R. 59.
..
••
•
-I
I
(1) s.c.R.
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS
711
was rejected by the Compensation Officer and confirmed by
the AdditiMal Settlement Commissioner.
The High Court
of Nagpur quashed the order.
In appeal to the Supreme the
Additional Settlement Commissioner contended that in respect
of an undivided interest in the land, the superior holder is
not entitled to the benefit of s. 4(2) of the Act because it is
not a 'holding', alternatively, that the land which was, at
the date of vesting, lying fallow otherwise than in accordance
with the usual agricultural practice oould never be regarded
as 'home farm'.
Held, that a part of a holding or an undivided int.rest
in a "holding" in Berar may also be 'home farm' land if it
otherwise fulfils the requirement of rl. (i), (ii) or (iii) of sub-
cl. (3) of s. 2(g) of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Pro-
prietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1951.
The land having been granted in lease for cultivation
it is by virtue of s. 4(2) of the Act to be retained in the
possession of the proprietor. Grant of a lease for cultivation
evidences an intention on the part of the proprietor that the
land is to be converted to agricultural purposes, and default
on the part of the lessee to cultivate the land will not deprive
the lessor proprietor of the benefit granted to him by the
statute.
CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No. 281 of 1959.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment
and order dated October 12, 1955, of the former
Nagpur High Court in Misc. Petition 1\o. 288 of
1954.
I
H. R. Khanna and R. H. Dhebar, for the
•
appellants.
S. N. Kherdekar and .4. G. Ratnaparkhi, for
respondent No. l.
·
1961. November 2!l. The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
SHAH, J.-Out of a tot.a.I area of 2,375 acres 3
gunthas of Dhanora-an Izara village in Ta.Iuka
1961
Thi Additiunal
Sdtlmient
Commissioner
V,
T u~ivant M adhao
Mal,4jan
1110
TM Additin•l
Sellkmtnl
CommisJion1r
v.
Ytsltwont M«tihno
Mahajan
Sluzh J.
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
•
Pusad in the State of Madhya Pradesh-2,283 acres
1md 28 gunthas is assessed land nnd the remaining
91 acres and 15 gunthas is unassesged. One Surat
Singh who was the proprietor of the village, by sale
deed dated May 24, 1947, conveyed an undivided
half share in the village to Yeshwant Madhao
Mahajnn--hereinafter
called
Mahajan--for
Ha. 25,000/- and on the same day executed a
kabulayat (lease deed) for five years in respect of the
same land for cultivation at an annual rental of
Rs. 3,000/-. The Legislature of the Madhya Pradesh
SExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.