Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the petitioner held the land from the respondent No. 5, who was a Muafidar. If a 'Muafidar' is included in the definition of an 'occupant', it is conceded by the respondent No. 5 that the petitioner would become an occupancy tenant under Section 185 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The contention, however, is that Muafidars and occupants belong to two different categories and their status is different and that they are treated differently under the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932, and that a Muafidar cannot be included in the definition of an 'occupant', even if the definition of 'occupant' as given in that Act is widely interpreted. The Board of Revenue has expressed this view in the following words:

"The Additional Commissioner has held the applicant (respondent No. 5), although admittedly a muafidar, to be an occupant as he was holding land direct from Government or would do so but for the right of collecting land revenue having been relinquished in his favour I am afraid I cannot agree with the Additional Commissioner in this view of the matter. In the first place if it were intended that there should he no difference or distinction in status between the occupant and a muafidar, there would have been no need for giving a separate definition for the term 'Muafidar' in the same Act. In Section 2(5) of the Act a muafidar has been separately defined as the holder of alienated land in whose favour the land revenue is relinquished by the Government. Besides, the rights and liabilities of the two classes of land holders at provided for in the Act, are also materially different and point unmistakably to fee fact that they were not intended to be synonymous. An occupant is a tenant of the Government, while a Muafidar is the holder of alienated land."

6. Apart from this, what Section 185 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, requires is that we must look to the definition of an 'occupant' as given in the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932, and nothing more. If the definition is wide enough to include even a Muafidar, that is the end of the matter, and no further enquiry is warranted as to how a Muafidar was treated under the said Act. We have already pointed out that the definition of an 'occupant' is wide enough to include every person who holds land directly from the Government subject to payment of land revenue or a person who, but for relinquishment of such right by the Government, would have held land from the Government. A Muafidar would obviously be a person who would have been made liable to pay land revenue but for the relinquishment of such right by the Government and he is included in the definition of an 'occupant' It is an accepted principle of interpretation of statutes that the widest possible interpretation should be put on the words used in a statute unless the context otherwise directs. The Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, recognises only one type of tenure-holders, namely, that of Bhumiswamis. All those persons who were holding land from the Government under the various Land Revenue and Tenancy Laws operative in the different parts of the State were brought on par under the present Code and were conferred the status of Bhumiswamis under Section 158 of the Code. Under that section Bhumiswami rights have been conferred on the 'occupants' from Bhopal area as defined in the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932. It would appear illogical to assume that the Legislature conferred Bhumiswami rights on the holders of land, excepting the Muafidars, when Muafidars from other regions were made tenure-holders. The context of the Act thus requires that the definition of an 'occupant' should be interpreted liberally so as to include a Muafidar also.

8. Shri Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, referred to Chapter XIV of the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932, and urged that Jagirdars and Muafidars were prohibited from transferring their rights in the Jagir or Muafi and that they were differently treated in certain matters as compared to the 'occupants'. He, therefore, urged that there was no scope for including a 'Muafidar' in the definition of an 'occupant'. It is no doubt true that in Chapter XIV of the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932, special provisions have been made prohibiting the Jagirdars and Muafidars from effecting certain kinds of transfers; but in all other matters, they are governed by the provisions made in Chapter XV which are applicable to other holders of land in the State. As special grants were made in favour of Jagirdars and Muafidars, it is quite natural that certain special provisions were made restricting their rights of transfer. From this fact alone no inference can be drawn that the Muafidars are not included in the definition of 'occupants'.