STATE OF MADHYA PRADEH & ORS. v. SARDAR D. K. JADHAV
Citation: [1972] 2 S.C.R. 864; 1971 INSC 347
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM , KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW
Judgment date:
Case summary
1971 INSC 347. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1971-12-14. STATE OF MADHYA PRADEH & ORS. v. SARDAR D. K. JADHAV. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1972) 2 S. C. R. STATE OF MADHYA Pit\f>ESH & ORS. v. SARDAR D. K. JADHAV December 14, 1971 [C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND K. K. MATHEW, JJ. ] Madhya Rharat Abolition of Jagirs Act Samvat 2008 (Act 28 of 1951), ss. 2(1) (ix) and 5(c)-'Occupied land' wht4 is'-Protection of s. 5(c) whether available where area of tanks is partly occupied by Jagirdar and partly by tenants. Under s. 5(c) of the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act Samvat 2008 (Act 28 of 1951) all tanks, trees etc. in or on 'occupied lands' belonging to or held by the Jagirdar or any other person were excluded from vesting in the State by virtue of s. 4. The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court claiming that certain tanks built by himself and his predecessor-in-title were on 'occupied land' and therefore came within the protection of s. 5(c).
The original order passed by the High Court in the writ petition was set aside by this Court and the High Court was directed to decide afresh the claim made by the writ petitioners under s. 5(c) of the A~t After considering the evidence before it on this question the High Court held that the tanks in question were saved under s. 5(c) and they had not vested in the State under, the Abolition Act. In appeal by the State to this Court, HELD: 'Occupied land' as defined in s. 2(1)(ix) of the Act comprises broadly two types of lands : ( 1) four categories of land held under the tenures enumerated in sub-clauses (a) to (d); and (2) comprised in Khud-Kasbt and 'homestead'. To attract cl. (c) of s. 5 the tank must be shown in the first instance to be on occupied land that is on land comprised under the tenures enumerated in sub-clauses (a) to (d) or in the Ian. ct held as khud-kasht and homestead.
It is not ne~"ssary_ that the entire tank should be exclusively situated in the land held as khud-kasht and land comprised in homestead. The requirement of the tanks in question ceing an occupied 12. nd will be satisfied even if part of the tank is situated in one or the other of t~~ tenuri:-s me'l. t;oned in suh-cl~uses (a) to (d) of cl. (ix) of s. 2(1) and the rest of it is included in the land held as khud-kasht and the land comprised in a homestead. That is, the entire area of the tank must be comprised in either the tenures or the khud-kasht or hormstead or in both. Therefore it was not possible to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant State that only those tanks which are on khud-kasht land of the Jagirdar are saved to him. Acc'eptance of such a contention will be ignoring the clear working -0f cl. (ix) of s. 2(1) which takes in also lands held on the various tenures referred to therein.
L871 o,GJ Therefore in the preient,·case the mere fact that a part of the tanks was in the occupation of the tenants as tenure-holders did not detract from the operation of the saving cl. (c) of s. 5. The expression 'any other person' is comprehensive enough to take in the persons who were holding the land on one or the other of the tenures enumerated in sub-clauses (a) to (d) of s. 2(1) (ix) of the Abolition Act. Whatever may be the extent o! the tanks in the possession of the respondent, as his khud-kasht or homestead and in the possession of the tenure-holders the position ultimately ~ in also lands held on the various tenures referred to therein. From this, it follows that the mere fact that a part of the tanks is in the occupation of the tenants as tenure-holders does not detract from operation of the saving cl. ( c) of s. 5. There is no controversy that at the material date the occupied lands on which M. P. STATE v. D. K. JADHAV (Vaidialingam, J.
) &i3 tanks are situated belonged to,or were held. by the Jagirdar or any other person. The expression "any other person" is comprehensive enough to take in the persons _who were holding t'1. e land on one or other of the tenures enumerated in sub-clauses (a) to (d) of:;. 0 2(1 ) (ix) of the Abolition Act. Whatever may be the extent of the tanks in the possession of the respondent, as his khud-kasht or homestead and in the possession of the tenure-holders, the position ultimately. is, that the entire extent of the tanks is in ''occupied land" belonging to or held by the Jagirdar or any other person. The actual extent and the area held by the Jagirdar and the tenure· holders can be worked out only in', the presence of both · those parties. To conclude, we are satisfied that the High Court has applied the correct test to find out whether the tanks are saved under s. 5 ( c) of the Abolition Act.
We are also in agreement with the finding of the High Court that the four tanks and the pick-up weir are saved lo the respondent under s. 5 ( c) of the Abolition Act. In the result, the judgment and order of the High Court are confirmed and this appeal dismissed with costs. G. C. _Appeal dismissed.
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.