Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

well established position is that the lease amount should be just and fair and that principle should be kept in mind even at the time of renewal of lease. These are the broad issues that have been agitated before this Court in all these matters.

10. For the view that we would take, we do not think it necessary to burden this judgment with the facts of each case. Instead, we would deal with the general issues and arguments pressed before us at the time of hearing; and relegate the parties before the concerned Revenue Authority who in turn will have to decide each matter on its own facts applying the established legal principles and the observations in the present decision. In the said enquiry the concerned Petitioner to succeed, will necessarily have to establish before the Revenue Authority that his occupation of the land in question was as occupant Class-I as defined in Section 29 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MLRC') or that he held the land in full occupancy and the grant/lease (original and/or renewed) in his favour did not place any restriction on his right to : 21 :

When it comes to the payment of revenue, even at : 54 :

that stage, distinction between the occupants referred to in Clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section 1 of section 29 in contradiction to the Class of Holder, i.e. Government lessees in clause (c) has been kept in mind by the Legislature. The Occupants referred to in clauses (a) and (b) are obliged to pay "land revenue", whereas the Government lessee covered by clause (c) has to pay "rent". Notably, a "Government Lessee" is defined in Section 2(11) of the MLRC to mean a person holding land from Government under a lease provided by Section 38 of MLRC. Whereas, an "Occupant" is defined in Section 2(23) of MLRC to mean a holder in actual possession of unalienated land, "other than a tenant or Government lessee", provided that, where a holder in actual possession is a tenant, the land holder or the superior landlord, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be occupant.
provision does not dilute the efficacy of right flowing from Section 36 of MLRC to enjoy the right of transferability and inheritance, so long as the lease tenure does not put any restriction thereon.

34. Power to grant leases is bestowed on the Collector in terms of section 38 of the MLRC. We may reproduce Section 38 to 40 as the same are of some relevance which read thus:

Government Grants Act, 1895. In cases where such condition has been imposed, obviously, those cases will not be covered by the definition of "occupants Class-I" so as to enjoy permanent and transferable right in the land.

42. According to the Petitioners insofar as Berar Land Revenue Code, 1928 is concerned, Section 56 thereof provided that subject to personal law, the rights of occupant shall be permanent and transferable and on his death shall pass by inheritance, bequest or survivorship, as the case may be. According to the Petitioners they were enjoying the lands in question as Bhumiswami. It was argued that, that right was protected by the subsequent legislation of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954 (Section 152) or for that matter, MLRC(Sections 336, 337). Indeed, if the holder of the land possessed permanent and transferable right in the property, he would fall within the definition of "occupant-Class-I" within the meaning of Section 29 of the MLRC. Whether he is covered by definition of occupant-Class-I or not is a question of fact to be examined by the : 76 :