Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Mp. vs Balram on 6 August, 2018
-1-
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT
INDORE
S.B: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA
SECOND APPEAL No.120/2001
STATE OF M.P
Vs.
BALRAM S/O RAMGOPAL
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, Govt. Advocate for the
appellant/State.
None for the respondent.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 09.08.2018) This appeal by defendant/State is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2000 rendered in Civil Appeal No.1A/2000 confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 24.02.1995 in Civil Suit No.46A/91.
2. This Court while admitting the appeal for final hearing has framed following two substantial questions of law on 20.03.2002:-
(1) Whether lower Appellate Court was justified in conferring a right of ownership (Bhumiswami) in favour of the plaintiff without there being any documentary evidence evidencing his right in his name in the documents filed by the plaintiff ?
(2) In view of the entry in the revenue records indicating the status of plaintiff to be that of a PUJARI, can the lower appellate Court conferr a right of Bhumiswami in favour of plaintiff on the strength of such revenue records ?-2-
3. Before adverting to said questions, it is expedient to reiterate relevant facts. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction interalia contending that the suit land /agricultural land described in paragraph-1 of the impugned judgment adjunct to Rameshwar Mahadev Temple in the village Kukdeshwar was given to the ancestors of the plaintiff as Inami land in the year 1931 by virtue of services rendered by him as Pujari in the temple by the erstwhile ruler of Holkar State. The land was settled in the name of the ancestors of the plaintiff by the Settlement Officer after due enquiry under section 20 of the Enquiry Rules, 1926 and the document Tahkikat Inam was issued to Govardhan on 14.08.1930 (overleaf portion of Ex.P/4). Thereafter, since then with the passage of time, names of descendants were recorded in the revenue record showing their possession. As such, consequent upon coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (for short 'the MPLR Code') on 02.10.1959, by virtue of provisions as contained under section 158 thereof, the plaintiff became Bhumiswami. As defendants made changes in the revenue record endorsing name of the Collector as Vyapastapak/Manager of the temple and threatened the plaintiff for forcible dispossession, the instant suit for declaration and injunction was filed.
4. Per contra, the defendant/State filed written statement denying plaint allegations interalia contending that the suit land was, in fact, adjunct to the temple and at no point of time ever settled in the name of the ancestors of the plaintiff and, therefore, -3- the name of the Collector was rightly been recorded as Manager in respect thereof in the revenue records.
5. Trial Court on aforesaid pleadings, framed issues. For disposal of this appeal, relevant issues No.1 & 2 answered in paragraphs-5 to 12 are relevant which read as under:
okn iz'u fu"d"kZ 1& D;k oknxzLr Hkwfe;k oknh ds iwoZtksa dks jkes'oj egknso ds eafnj dh iwtk vpZuk djus dh ,ot gkW esa rkRdkyhu gksYdj jkT; }kjk crkSj buke nh xbZ Fkh\ 2& D;k oknxzLr vkjkth lfoZl gksfYMax dh gksus ls e-iz-jktLo lafgrk dh /kkjk 158 ds varxZr oknh gkW bl Hkwfe dk Hkwfe Lokeh gks x;k gS\
6. Parties led evidence. Upon critical evaluation of the evidence placed on record, the trial Court returned the finding in favour of the plaintiff relying upon the certified copies of Kist Bandi Khatoni (Ex.P/1 to P/3); Khasra (Ex.P/4 to P/6) and Adhikar Abhilekh (1968-69). It has been found that as far back as in the year 1931 in revenue record in column No.1 the name of Govardhan s/o Gaurishankar is recorded as Inamdar and shown to be in possession. On the overleaf portion of Ex.P/4, as referred above, endorsement has been made as regards settlement of the land in favour of Govardhan by the Enquiry Officer under section 20 of the Settlement Rules and declared him as Inamdar under rule 35 thereof. As such, by virtue of section 158 of the MPLR Code, the plaintiff has been declared as Bhumiswami by legal fiction. Other issues were also answered in favour of the plaintiff related to possession and endorsement in the name of the Collector in the revenue records in respect of the suit land without notice and opportunity to the plaintiff was held to be illegal. Consequently, -4- the suit has been decreed. The appellate Court upon re- appreciation of evidence placed on record has confirmed the findings and decreed the suit.
7. Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate while criticizing the impugned judgments reiterated the same submissions as advanced before the Courts below that the said land being land of the temple, the same could not have been claimed by the plaintiff as Bhumiswami. However, learned counsel has not been able to substantiate the above submissions either with advertence to the record or the provisions of law. There is no answer to the document Ex.P/4 of the year 1931 when the land in question was given to the plaintiff's ancestors as Inami land and was settled by the then Enquiry Officer under section 20 of the Enquiry Rules. The veracity of the documents is beyond pole of doubt for more than one reason. There is no challenge to the said document and the document being more than 30 years old is admissible by virtue of section 90 of the Evidence Act. That apart, the findings recorded by the Courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence placed on record and are impeccable in nature.
8. By virtue of the fact that the plaintiff's ancestors are holding the Inami land and have been paying lagan after coming into force of the Land Revenue Code and continued to be in possession, they have acquired Bhumiswami rights by force of section 158 of the MPLR Code which is quoted below:-
158. Bhumiswami-(1) Every person who at the time of coming into force of this Code, belongs to any of the following classes shall be called a Bhumiswami and shall have all the rights and be subject to all the liabilities -5- conferred or imposed upon a Bhumiswami by or under this Code, namely:-
(a) ----- ------- -------- ---------
(b) every person in respect of land held by him in the Madhya Bharat region as a Pakka tenant or as a Muafidar, Inamdar or Concessional holder, as defined in the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 (66 of 1950);
9. Consequently, the questions of law framed in this appeal are answered in affirmative and in favour of the plaintiff. In the result, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(ROHIT ARYA)
JUDGE
Digitally signed by Hari Kumar Nair
hk/ Date: 2018.08.13 18:22:49 -07'00'