Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. In this appeal by certificate granted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court the question of law which falls for our determination is whether conferral of Bhumiswami rights on Shri Khushi Lal, respondent No. 1 in respect of the lands in question in accordance with Section 190 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the M.P. Code of 1959, by the Revenue Authorities is correct and sustainable.

2. Maulana Shamsuddin, the sole appellant in this appeal, was a Muafidar in the erstwhile State of Bhopal of the disputed lands in accordance with the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932 (for brevity, the Bhopal Act of 1932). The first respondent claimed to be a Shikmi of the appellant in respect of the lands in question. His case was that the appellant was the occupant of the lands within the meaning of the Bhopal Act of 1932. On the coming into force of the M.P. Code of 1959, the appellant became a Bhumiswami under Clause (c) of Section 158 and the respondent became an occupancy tenant under Section 185(1)(iv)(b). Thus he became entitled to conferment of Bhumiswami rights under Section 490. He applied before the Tahsildar, Huzur, respondent No. 5 for mutation of his name as a Bhumiswami in the Revenue records. The Tahsildar by his order dated the 24th June, 1963 directed Khushi Lal to deposit compensation equivalent to 15 times of the land revenue on the payment of which his name was to be recorded as a Bhumiswami of the holdings. It appears his name was so recorded on the deposit of the compensation money. The appellant filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer. Huzur, respondent No. 4 from the order of the Tahsildar. His appeal was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on the 12th of December, 1963. The appellant failed before the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal, respondent No. 3 on the dismissal of his second appeal on the 25th August 1964. He went in revision before the Board of Revenue, (respondent No. 2). The revision was allowed on the 6th of July, 1965. The Board held that the appellant was not an occupant within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Bhopal Act of 1932 and consequently the first respondent was not a Shikmi under the said Act. He did not become an occupancy tenant under the M.P. Code of 1959 and, therefore, conferral of Bhumiswami rights on him was erroneous in law. The first respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court and succeeded there. The High Court held that the Board was not right in its view of the law. The appellant was an occupant and the respondent No. 1 was a sub-tenant (Shikmi) under the Bhopal Act of 1932. Consequently he became an occupancy tenant entitled to conferment of Bhumiswami rights under the M.P. Code of 1959. The appellant has preferred this appeal in this Court to challenge the decision of the High Court and for restoration of the order of the Board of Revenue.

"Occupant" means a person who holds land direct from the Government or would do so but for the right of collecting land revenue having been assigned or relinquished.

5. It would thus be seen that if pursuant to the grant made by His Highness the Ruler of Bhopal, Government's right to receive land revenue was assigned to the grantee then he was called a Jagirdar and if it was relinquished then the person in whose favour such relinquishment was made was called Muafidar. Under the first part of the definition of "occupant" given in Sub-section (15) a person who holds land direct from Government would be an occupant and being not a person in whose favour the right to receive land revenue has either been assigned or relinquished will be required to pay to the Government land revenue or rent. We are using both the words 'revenue' and 'rent' on the assumption that such an occupant being neither a Jagirdar nor a Muafidar would be required to pay some money to the Government for being in occupation of the land. Under the second part of the definition a Jagirdar or a Muafidar would also be holding land direct from Government but because the right of collecting land revenue has either been assigned or relinquished, strictly speaking, he does not hold land direct from the Government in the sense of paying any land revenue or rent to it because the Government has parted with the right to collect land revenue from him. We are of the opinion, in agreement with the High Court, that on a careful analysis of the definition of the term "occupant" in Section 2(15), it is legitimate to conclude that even a Jagirdar or a Muafidar is an occupant. He holds land under the Government; on the resumption of the Jagir or the Muafi rights by the Government the land reverts back to it. Payment of land revenue or rent for holding land under the Government was not a sine-qua-non for making the holder of the land an occupant.

12. Our attention was drawn by the learned Counsel for the appellant to Section 167 of the Bhopal Act of 1932 dealing with the restriction in the rights of the Jagirdars and Muafidars to transfer such rights or create encumbrances on them. According to the said Section no Jagirdar or Muafidar could "transfer his rights as Jagirdar or muafidar, or, except for such period as he is in possession of his jagir or muafi create an encumbrance on the income thereof." But inducting a person as Shikmi on the land was not prohibited under Section 167. On the other hand, Section 194 provided that an occupant could make a lease of his holding and under certain circumstances it could not be for a term of more than 12 years. It was then argued that the right of a Muafidar being in the nature of a life grant was valid only for the life time of the Muafidar. So the Muafidar could not induct a person as Shikmi who ultimately could become an occupancy tenant entitled to conferment of Bhumiswami rights later on. This argument has to be stated merely to be rejected. It may well be that the right of a Shikmi would not have lasted beyond the duration of the right of the Muafidar. But then, his rights were enlarged by operation of the welfare legislation enacted by the State Legislature for the benefit of the cultivators of the soil in the year 1959. Section 185(1)(iv)(b) of the M.P. Code of 1959 says :-

The expression "occupant" shall have the same meaning as in the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932 (IV of 1932) and, for the purposes of this Act, it should also include a muafidar, as defined in Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932 (IV of 1932).

In other sections of the said Act protection against ejectment was given to the Shikmis. The argument was that protection to the sub-tenants of Jagirdars was given in the Bhopal Act of 1952 and protection to such persons was given in case of sub-tenants of Muafidar under the Bhopal Act of 1954 by including Muafidar in the expression 'occupant' occurring in the said Act. Counsel, therefore, submitted that if the term 'occupant' in the Bhopal Act of 1932 had included a Muafidar then there was no necessity of expressly and separately including a Muafidar in the definition of the said expression in the Act of 1954. In our opinion this argument has no substance. It may be by way of abundant precaution or for putting the matter beyond any shadow of doubt that the expression 'occupant' was defined in a comprehensive manner in the Bhopal Act of 1954. Section 3 of the said Act shows that even a Muafidar could sub-let a land to a person and induct him as a Shikmi prior to the coming into force of this Act. Such a Shikmi got the protection against ejectment by operation of law engrafted in the Bhopal Act of 1954. After the passing of this Act, he no longer could be said to be a Shikmi only during the life time of the Muafidar but was so even beyond it.