Leading Case CG LRC

 

1. Poonam Chand (Plaintiff/ Appellant)

Vs 

State of M.P. (Defendant/ Responded)

Sub: This case relates to Section 59 (2) of the MP Land Revenue Code, which has retrospective effect or not, has been decided herein.

Facts of the case :-

1. The Plaintiff owned an agricultural land measuring 26 acre in the Khasra No. 649/3 at Tahsil Sausar in District Chhindwada of MP.

2. A house was built at this land by diverting a portion of that agricultural land into non agricultural land in the year 1928.

3. The MP Land Revenue Code came into effect from 2 Octo- ber, 1959 and this was clear that the diversion of the said land had already taken place before the MP Land Revenue Code having been operational.

4. Section 59A of the Code has a clear provision that when- ever an assessment is done under this Section, it will be done after this Code being effective.

5. The SDM, in whose jurisdiction the land was situated, had passed an order on 10-3-1964 for a rent of Rs. 63.64 instead of Rs. 48.80 by deeming the conversion of the land after the Code being effective.

6. The Appellant, being aggrieved by the said order of the SDM, preferred an appeal before the District Collector, Chhindwada, which the Collector dismissed on 5-8-1964

7. The Appellant filed a second appeal before the Additional Commissioner against the order of the District Collector. The Additional Commissioner also dismissed it on 29-6-1965.

8. The Appellant filed a revision petition against the said or- der of the Additional Commissioner and raised the fol- lowing contentions---

1. There is no dispute in this regard that the land was diverted in the year of 1928. Therefore, Section 59 (2) of this Code will not apply to the instant matter because the rent may be amended on the diversion of the land after the provisions of this Section of the Code being effective. Therefore, the order passed by the SDM is in- valid and liable to be set aside.

II. None of the Courts below has taken note of this fact that MP Land Revenue Code has become effective from 2 October 1959. Therefore, it is unlawful to make amend- ment in the rent on the basis of the changes having been made before the effective date of the provisions of the Code.

Judgment: The Court has decided that it is clear from the language of Section 59 (2) of the Code that there may be amendment in the assessment of the rent only when the changes have taken place in the land after the Code being effective because in the present case, the changes were made in the land the before Code being effective, There- fore, Section 59 (2) will not apply in this matter. In such a condition the Authority has no right to make amendment in the assessment of the rent. So, the orders of the SDM and Collector and order of the Additional Commissioner confirming the order of the SDM are liable to be dis- missed. The revision petition deserves to be allowed.

Law points:-

1. Section 59 (2) of the MP Land Revenue Code applies only in a case where an agricultural land is converted into a non agricultural land.

2. The provisions of Section 59 (2) will apply to a land only when such conversion had taken place after 2 October 1959

3. The provisions of any law become effective from the date of the commencement of that law, not before that, i.e. a law has no retrospective effect.

—---------

2.

State of M.P. (Appellant)

Vs 

Babulal (Responded)

Ref:1980 JLJ 856 (SC)

Sub: This case relates to Section 165 of the MP Land Revenue Code

Facts of the case: -

1. Defendant No.1 Babulal who belonged to a non- tribal caste in District Jhabua of MP, filed a declaratory suit before the Civil Judge, Class II for recording of his name as land owner over the land of Account No. 04 and Survey No. 12224 and 354 which exists in the village of Amlipada, Tahsil Jhabua.

2. Defendant No. 2 Baghia, who belonged to Bheel (tribe) and was the actual owner of the land, did not file any objection before the Court.

3. Therefore, Babulal (Defendant No. 1) and Baghia (Defen- dant No.2) made a compromise with each other and Baghia transferred his rights of land ownership to Babulal.

4. Actually, in this case, a tribal man had transferred rights of his land to a non-tribal.

5. State, raising an objection over this transfer, filed a suit that the aforesaid proceedings violates the provisions of Section 165 (6) of the MP Land Revenue Code which deals with the rights of the transfer.

6. Section 165 (6) prohibits the transfer of a land by a tribal to a non- tribal

High Court -

Therefore, the Government has stated in its petition before the High Court that the judgment given by the Civil Court is against the law and unlawful because the parties have tried to get an illegal trans- fer recognised by law and this a clear cut infringement of the main provisions of the statute.

The Government has filed an application for issuance of writ of certiorari to annul this judgment. The High Court dismissed the peti- tion of the Government on this ground that the Government should have filed a declaratory suit in the lower court and declined to issue a writ of certiorari.

Supreme Court -

The Government filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court. The Supreme Court, by looking at Sec- tion 165, held that this transfer was unlawful and in this regard, the High Court should have issued a writ of certiorari, because main principle to issue a writ of certiorari against illegal act and error in the judgment.

Judgment- The judgment of the High Court is set aside, the High Court is directed to issue directions for issuane of writ of certiorari to declare the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Class II, Jhabua as unlawful. Appeal is allowed.

Law points

1. Section 165 of the MP Land Revenue Code deals with the right of transfer, any transfer made in violation of which will be illegal.

2. If a tribal man wants to transfer his land to a non-tribal, he will have to take prior permission from the Collector.

3. The judgment rendered by the lower Court or any invalid proceedings can be canceled through writ of certiorari.

—--------

3. Harprasad Bahorelal (Applicant)

Vs 

Board of Revenue (Non applicant)

Ref: 1964 MPLJ 370

Sub:- This case is based on Sections 50 and 244 of the MP Land Revenue Code

Facts of the case :-

1. Revaram (Respondent) filed an application before the Tahsildar, Banda for the allotment of a plot on 15 September 1958. This land was situated at Tahsil Banda, Mauja Shahgarh.

2. Harprasad (Applicant) also moved an application before the SDO on 30 November 1959 for the allotment of the same plot.

3. As a result, the SDO, Banda passed an order for the allot- ment of the said plot in favour of Harprasad on 15 February, 1959.

4. The Tahsildar released the lease of the said land to Harprasad on 4 March, 1959.

5. But, the Tahsildar and the SDO both were unaware of the application of Sevaram or they did not take notice of it.

6. Therefore, Revaram filed an appeal before the SDO against the order of release of lease passed by the Tahsildar.

First appeal :-

The SDO dismissed the said appeal because the release of lease by the Tahsildar to the Plaintiff was an administrative work which he did in compliance of the order of the SDO.

Second appeal:-

Revaram preferred a second appeal before the Commissioner, Jabalpur which was dismissed

Revision:-

Thereafter, Revaram filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, MP. The Board of Revenue set aside the order of the SDO by describing it as legal disobedience and said that the order of the SDO was inconsistent with Section 244 because if there are more than one applicant for the allotment, than the allotment must have been done through auction.

High Court : -

Therefore, Harprasad filed a petition under Article of the Constitution against the order of the Revenue Board.

It was contended on behalf of the applicant that the order of the Tahsildar cannot be changed by an appeal. Therefore, revision cannot lie against it.

The High Court was of the view that Section 50 of the MP Land Revenue Code confers vast powers to the Revenue Board. Therefore, The High Court may review the order of the lower Court.

Since, the allotment was unlawfully made in violation of Section 244 and the SDO committed irregularities in the allotment. The order passed by the Board of Revenue is valid.

Judgment Petition dismissed.

Law points :-

1. The Board of Revenue may, even suo motu, revise the order of the lower Court.

2. There is no time limit for a revision.

3. No appeal lies against the administrative work of the Tahsildar.

4. If an allotment has been made in violation of allotment rules, then such an allotment may be annulled.

—------

4. Nandu (Applicant)

Vs 

Balu and others (Non-applicant)

Ref:- 1965 MPLJ 178

Sub:- This case is based on Section 131 of the MP Land Revenue Code.

Facts of the case :-

1. Applicant was a resident of village 'A' and his agricultural land was situated at village 'C'

2. The applicant had to pass through the land of the non- applicant in order to reach his land which was situated at village by the name of 'B' which the applicant had to cross to reach his land.

3. The non-applicant raised an objection to the applicant's crossing his land.

4. The applicant filed a declaratory suit before the Tahsildar and sought the right of passage on the basis of the prevalent custom.

Trial Court:-

The Tahsildar dismissed the application on the ground that the applicant could not prove that he has been continuously using the extent of the land.

First Appellate Court: -

Thereafter, the applicant filed an appeal before the court of SDO against the judgment of the Tahsildar, which was allowed and the or- der of the Tahsildar was set aside.

Revision:-

The non-applicant filed a revision before the Commissioner. The Commissioner, while allowing the revision, dismissed the order of the SDO and held that Section 131 will not apply in this case.

High Court :-

The Court did not agree to the interpretation of Section 131 by the Commissioner and said that there is nothing in Section 131 which directly or indirectly confines the limits of the 'land of a farmer' to the limit of his village. Therefore, Section 131 will also apply in a case where a farmer applies to shift from his village to his land situated at another village.

Therefore, the court, while allowing the revision application and dismissing the order of the Commissioner, sent back the matter to the Commissioner for settlement according to law.

Judgment :  The revision was allowed.

Law points :-

1. A farmer has a right to reach his land by passing through a land situated at another village.

2. While applying Section 131, one should keep in mind the convenience of other parties also, irrespective of the custom prevalent earlier.

3. Section 131 applies in a case also where a farmer has land in another village also besides land having at his village and he seeks passage to reach there.

—---------

5. 

Manmohan Lal Shukla (Appellant)

Vs 

Board of Revenue (Respondent)

Ref:- 1964 MPLJ 32

Sub:- This case is related to Section 146 of the MP Land Revenue Code

Facts of the case :-

1. Defendant No. 2 to 4 had 19.65 acre of land at village Behiria in District Sivani of M.P, of which they were joint owner.

2. The said land was sold to the Petitioner Manmohan Lal Shukla for Rs. 1,500 for the recovery of " Takvi" loan.

3. Defendant No 2 raised an objection on the said sale.

4. The S.D.O, Sivani, while dismissing the said objection on 8 October, 1960, Confirmed the sale.

5. Defendant No. 2 filed an appeal before the Commissioner Jabalpur which was dismissed.

6. After this, Defendant No. 2 to 4 filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. The Court observed that the land belonged to Defendant No. 2 to 4. Therefore, a notice ought to have been issued to all the debtors under Section 146, which was not done. Therefore, the sale was invalid. The Board of Revenue, while allowing the revision, set aside the sale.

7. The Appellant Manmohan Lal Shukla filed a writ petition before the High Court against the order of the Board of Revenue and put forth the following contentions:

A) That Defendant No. 2 was the "Karta" of a joint family and this land belonged to the joint family.

B) Defendant No. 2 was doing "pairvi" on behalf of oth- ers. Therefore, there was no need to issue any notice to Defendant No. 2 and 4.

C) All the Account - holders acts through the "Karta". 

The High Court, while expressing its views, held that-

1. It was a necessary condition to issue a demand notice under Section 147 which was not done in this case.

2. It makes no difference that other debtors did not take part in the proceedings.

3. Non-participation of any other debtor in the proceed- ings does not end the mandatory condition of the de-mand notice.

Therefore, the sale is liable to be made dismissed due to non- compliance of Section 147.

Judgment The petition was dismissed.

1. It was a necessary condition to issue a demand notice to all the debtors under Section 147.

2. If a demand notice is not issued to all the debtors, the proceed- ings will be invalid.

3. Non- issuance of notice is not an irregularity.

—------