Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. In order to point out nature of occupation of present Petitioner, learned Advocate Shri Gordey, as also Advocate Shri Lohiya and learned Special Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Tajwar Khan, invited attention to various provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Court, 1954. They contend that the provisions of all these enactments contemplate "government lessee" as distinct class by itself and he cannot be occupant Class-I or occupant Class-II. It is their contention that "tenant" is altogether separate entity and concept, in these statutes.

17. The position which therefore emerges is that after 31/12/1994 the Petitioners had/have no right to claim renewal and therefore, to claim any right to continue in occupation of leased premises i.e. suit land.

She can always be evicted in accordance with law and impugned order which seeks to resume the land in view of expiry of whole/total period of lease of 90 years therefore cannot be faulted with. The contention of Petitioner that as alienation has been permitted under the Lease Dead, Petitioner would be covered by definition of occupant class I by placing reliance upon unreported Division Bench judgment of this Court (Nagpur bench) in bunch of the writ petitions therefore is not relevant in present matter. Records show that Petitioner did not have full occupancy rights and therefore right to transfer the land itself. Reliance upon provisions of Section 337 of MLR Code,1966 is also misconceived in present facts. In any case, such contentions cannot be used to defeat the overriding effect given to provisions of Government Grants Act. Petitioner herself states that she has moved revenue authorities for changing her status as occupant class I holder and according to her that request is still pending. The pendency of said request has got no bearing on present matter and it only shows that as on today, State Government has not recognised her as occupant class I and hence matter needs to be viewed in the light of provisions of Government Grants Act. It also needs to be mentioned that Collector, Akola has rejected application of present Petitioner for grant of full occupancy rights on 4/6/1985 observing that she would get a right to transfer the land thereby and earn the profits from the rise in the price thereof. This order has become final as it was not challenged further by her. In view of expiry of lease period, the question of breach also becomes irrelevant at this stage because the effort of Respondent No. 4 and 5 was to have a review of the order dated 29/1/1980 directing renewal of lease in favour of present Petitioners till 31/12/1994. The impugned order passed on 14/6/1988 by Special Officer of State Government directed resumption of suit land back by Government and history of litigation ensuing thereafter has already come above.

18. The last renewal in favour of present Petitioner is from year 1965 & on 29/1/1980 i.e. after provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 came into force. As per Section 29 of MLR code, Government Lessee is distinct class by itself separate from Occupant class I & Occupant class II. The occupant class I holds an un-alienated land in perpetuity and without any restrictions on right to transfer.

Petitioner has failed to point out how she is trying to treat herself to be Occupant class I. MP Land Revenue Code, 1954 in its section 2 (6) defines Government Lessee to mean a person holding land from the State Government under section 164 thereof. Subsection 20 of Section 2 defines tenure holder to mean person holding land from State Government as Bhumiswami or Bhumidhari. It is not necessary to refer to all these provisions in detail because Section 164 (1) of this MP Land Revenue Code clearly states that a person who held land from State Government or to whom right to occupy land was granted by it and he was not entitled to hold that land as tenure holder was a "government lessee" in respect of such land. The Petitioner was not & never claimed to be a tenure holder. Section 164 (2) stipulates that such Government Lessee held land in accordance with the terms and conditions of the grant which is deemed to be a grant within the meaning of Government Grants Act, 1895. Prior to this MP Land Revenue Code, provisions of Berar Land Revenue Code, 1928 were applicable and Section 53 and 54 dealt with disposal of unoccupied land. The person who acquired a right to occupy land under Section 53 was called as occupant. Its Section 54 (2) provided that persons holding agricultural land as occupants or held rights in un-alienated nonagricultural land under the style of "occupant" or under lease permitting them to hold it in perpetuity, were to be recognised as occupants for Section 54. By this provision restrictions on their rights inconsistent with Berar land Revenue Code were removed. As suit land was never held in perpetuity by either the petitioner or her predecessors, She can not be recognised as "occupant" for this or in subsequent enactment including Section 337 of MLR Code. But then in present facts, it is important to note that Section 55 (1) (d) of Berar Code declared that provisions of Section 53 and Section 54 would not apply to land given out for industrial and commercial purpose under the statutory rules framed in 1894. Therefore Petitioner or her predecessors were never an "occupant". The land came to be given to predecessor in title of present Petitioner in year 1905 for industrial purpose. The same has to be presumed as according to statutory rules of 1894 mentioned in Section 55 (1) (d) above. In fact no arguments on these lines are advanced before me by Petitioner.