Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

29. Classes of persons holding land.--

(1) There shall be under this Code the following classes of persons holding land from the State, that is to say

--

(a) Occupants--Class I,

(b) Occupants--Class II,

(c) Government lessees.

(2) Occupants--Class I shall consist of persons who--

(a) hold unalienated land in perpetuity and without any restrictions on the right to transfer,

(b) immediately before the commencement of this Code hold land in full or occupancy Bhumiswami rights without any restrictions on the right to transfer in accordance with the provisions of any law relating to land revenue in force in any part of the State immediately before such commencement, and 24[(c) on the 21st April 2018, being the date of commencement of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (Amendment) and the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Inclusion of certain Bhumidharis in Occupants--Class I Permission) Rules (Repeal) Act, 2018 (Mah. XLIV of 2018), were holding the FA-1430-2019-Judgment-corrected.doc Dixit land in Vidarbha in Bhumiswami rights with restrictions on right to transfer, or in Bhumidhari rights in any local area in Vidarbha.] (3) Occupants--Class II shall consist of persons who--

(a) hold unalienated land in perpetuity subject to restrictions on the right to transfer;

(b) immediately before the commencement of this Code hold--

(ii) elsewhere hold land in occupancy rights with restrictions on the right to transfer under any other law relating to land revenue; and

(c) before the commencement of this Code have been granted rights in unalienated land under leases which entitle them to hold the land in perpetuity, or for a period not less than fifty years with option to renew on fixed rent, under any law relating to land revenue and in force before the commencement of this Code ; and all provisions of this Code relating to the rights, liabilities and responsibilities of Occupants-- Class II shall apply to them as if they were Occupants--Class II under this Code.

32. A conjoint reading of the relevant provisions under the 1865 Act, the 1879 BLRC and the 1966 MLRC demonstrates a consistent legislative framework recognizing the concepts of "alienated", "alienated village", "estate", "occupant" and "superior-holder". The expression "alienated" denotes a transfer of the government right to receive land revenue in favour of a private person, while an "alienated village" refers to a village held and managed by such person, with exemption from payment of land revenue to the State. An "occupant" is a person whose name is entered in the revenue record for payment of assessment and in actual possession of unalienated land, other than a tenant. Section 36 of the 1865 Act confers upon an occupant a right of occupancy and expressly recognizes such right as heritable and transferable property, immune from disturbance so long as assessment FA-1430-2019-Judgment-corrected.doc Dixit is duly paid. A "superior-holder" under 1865 Act and 1879 BLRC signifies a person having the highest proprietary interest in land, with a statutorily recognised right to hold the land and recover revenue from inferior holders. We find that this conceptual framework of superior-holder is substantially preserved under Section 2(38) of the 1966 MLRC, which while repealing the 1879 Code, retains its essential structure. Section 20 of the 1966 MLRC declares that all lands, including public roads, bridges, rivers and lakes, and all lands not shown to be the property of others, vest in the State Government. However, sub-section (2) of Section 20 provides that any competing claim by or against the State Government shall be adjudicated by the Collector upon due notice and inquiry. Section 29 classifies landholders into Occupants - Class I (holding unalienated land in perpetuity and without restriction on transfer), Occupants - Class II (holding unalienated land in perpetuity subject to restrictions on transfer), and Government lessees. Section 37 of the 1966 MLRC secures the occupant's right to use and occupy the land in perpetuity, subject to payment of revenue obligations and on the fulfillment of conditions attached to the tenure. In the present case, the Grantee clearly answers to the description of a Class I-Occupant, enjoying heritable and transferable rights in perpetuity. The legislative continuity from the 1865 and 1879 enactments through to the 1966 MLRC affirms a settled position in revenue jurisprudence that what is colloquially described as "ownership" corresponds to the statutory status of an "occupant" or, in appropriate cases, a "superior-holder". The core concepts of FA-1430-2019-Judgment-corrected.doc Dixit "alienated village", "estate", "alienated land" and "superior- holder" have remained materially unchanged across these enactments. The statutory framework thus accords to the occupant, a proprietary interest in the land. Viewed against this backdrop, the Indenture of 1870 must be construed as effecting a divestment of the Her Majesty's Government revenue and proprietary interests and a corresponding conferment of a heritable, transferable and assignable estate in favour of the Grantee. The Indenture evidences a grant by which the lands stood alienated from payment of rent and land revenue as defined in Section II (d) of the 1865 Code, Section 3(20) of the 1879 BLRC and Section 2(20) of the 1966 MLRC. The reservation of limited rights, such as with respect to mines and minerals or prior permission of Collector for transfer does not dilute the essential character of the grant as one of alienation. Thus, in this legislative background, the legal relationship created by the Indenture cannot be characterized as that of lessor and lessee between the Secretary of State for India in Council and the Grantee as is sought to be argued by the appellant.