Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.22 seconds)
Documents citing Tulsiram Chadar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 November, 2021

Daulat Kori vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 March, 2022

5. Respondents had filed their reply and they adopted the return filed in W.P No.19433/2017 ( Tulsiram Chadar vs. State of M.P. and others) in all Writ Petitions. It was submitted that as per Madhya Pradesh Swamitwa Adhikaro (Malikana Hak) (Ilako, Mohalla, Dumala Bhumi) Ka Aant Karne Ka Adhiniyam, 1950, Gram Kotwar is holding two types of land, one is for village service and second for personal service of the Malgujars. If land was given to Kotwar by Malgujars for personal service then said Kotwar will be occupancy tenant in view of Section 45(3) of the Adhiniyam of 1950 and land which was given to Kotwars for village service, then he is holding it from the State as service land and this will be governed by Central Province Tenancy Act, 1920. In case of service land given to Kotwar for village service, he will not acquire the status of occupancy tenant and he does not acquire any right over such land and said land is attached to post of Kotwar. Petitioners are holding land's for village service on behalf of Malgujars/Jamindars and after abolition of said system, all lands belonged to State, 24 therefore, petitioners are not occupancy tenant and Bhoomi Swami rights are not conferred on them, therefore, Writ Petitions be dismissed.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 111 - V Dhagat - Full Document

Khush Lal Mehra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 March, 2022

3. Respondents had adopted reply, which has been filed in case in W.P. No. 19433/2017 (Tulsiram Chadar vs State of M.P. and others). It is averred in reply that Malguzars gave the lands to Kotwars for rendering services of different types. One type of service was village service and second was personal service of Malguzar. The land which was given by Malguzar for village service was to be recorded in revenue record as service land and land in question, which was given to grandfather of petitioner, was for village service and no rights of occupancy tenant W.P. No.7131/2019 accrued to petitioner. Counsel for the State relied on Madhya Pradesh Swamitwa Adhikaro (Malikana Hak) (Ilako, Mahalla, Dumala Bhumi) Ka Aant Karne Ka Adhiniyam, 1950. As per Section 45(2) of Adhiniyam, any person holding land as village service land shall be defined to be holding it from State and therefore, same will been governed to Section 42 to 48 of the Central Provinces Tenancy Act, 1920. It is submitted that any person holding land other than sir land from proprietor on favourable terms for service rendered by him shall from the date of vesting be declared to be occupancy tenant of the State and Deputy Commissioner shall fix the rent to be paid by him. Tenants who fall within category of Section 45(3) were to be declared as occupancy tenant. Petitioner and their forefathers were given land as they were doing village service and they were not occupancy tenant at the commencement of Code of 1959. Therefore, petitioner cannot be declared occupancy tenant and bhumiswami rights were not conferred upon him. Circular issued by State Government dated 03.03.2010 was issued in connosance with Section 45(3) of Adhiniyam of 1950. If petitioner satisfies the requirement of said provision then petitioner will get benefit of circular of State Government dated 03.03.2010. Since petitioner is not occupancy tenant, therefore, no declaration can be made in his favour. In view of same, prayer is made for dismissal of writ petition.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - V Dhagat - Full Document

Mehangya Patil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 March, 2022

2. Government Advocate appearing for State in other bunch matters had adopted reply filed in W.P. No.19433/2017 (Tulsiram Chadar vs State of M.P. and others). Said reply will not suffice in this case because each case is to be decided individually, as appeal and second appeal has been considered and dismissed, therefore, Government is directed to file reply in writ petition on merits of the case.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - V Dhagat - Full Document

Smt. Damdi Bai Pandole (Mehra) vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 March, 2022

2. Government Advocate appearing for State in other bunch matters had adopted reply filed in W.P. No.19433/2017 (Tulsiram Chadar vs State of M.P. and others). Said reply will not suffice in this case because each case is to be decided individually, as appeal and second appeal has W.P. No.23086/2018 been considered and dismissed, therefore, Government is directed to file reply in writ petition on merits of the case.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - V Dhagat - Full Document
1