THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus SABAL SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. on 14 October 2019

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

v.

SABAL SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 7991 of 2019)

OCTOBER 14, 2019

[ARUN MISHRA AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]

M.B. Zamindari Abolition Act – s. 4 – Madhya Pradesh LandRevenue Code, 1959 – s. 158 – Plaintiffs/respondents filed suit asthe successor of the Ex-Zamindar and sought declaration ofBhumiswami rights and permanent injunction, restraining thedefendants-State from interfering in their possession of the landcomprising different survey numbers – The plaintiffs/respondentsclaimed that the land was Khud-kasht land of their predecessors– Trial Court dismissed the suit and same was affirmed by the FirstAppellate Court – However, the High Court allowed the secondappeal and decreed the suit – On appeal, held: The land to besaved from vesting in the State was required to be under personalcultivation i.e., Khud-kasht, but besides it must have to recordedas “Khud-kasht” in the revenue paper before the date of vestingi.e. Samvat year 2007 – In the instant case, it was apparent fromKhasra entries before the date of vesting; in the relevant Samvatyear 2007, the land was not recorded as Khud-kasht of theerstwhile Zamindars – The land not being recorded as Khut-kashtin the revenue papers before the date of vesting, the mandatoryrequirement of s. 4(2) of the Abolition Act was not fulfilled – Suchland is not saved from vesting u/s. 4(1) of the Abolition Act as acultivable, barren or Bir land vested in the State automatically freefrom all encumbrances – Thus, the grassland, i.e., ‘bir’ land asper s. 4(1) of the Act vested in the State – Apart from that, therequirement of s. 2(c) of the Abolition Act that there had to bepersonal cultivation of the land by the Zamindar was not fulfilled – There was no personal cultivation recorded in revenue papersof erstwhile Zamindars – Therefore, the land automatically vestedin the State u/s. 4(1) of the Act – Findings of the Trial court andFirst Appellate Court was based on proper appreciation ofevidence – Thus, judgment and decree passed by the High Courtset aside.

681

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

682SUPREME COURT REPORTS

AAllowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The requirement of section 4(2) of the M.B.Zamindari Abolition Act is dual that the land should not only beKhud-kasht, but it should be so recorded in the annual villagepapers before the date of vesting. As the date of vesting wasB2.10.1951, the agricultural year in the erstwhile Madhya Bharatcommenced from 1[st] July to 30[th] June of the succeedingGregorian calendar year, the only relevant entry was before thedate of vesting, i.e., of Samvat 2007. The land is required to beso recorded as ‘Khud-kasht’ in the revenue papers before theCdate of vesting. As 2.10.1951 fell in the Samvat year 2008, thusthe entry in record of rights of Samvat 2007 assumessignificance as that has been made the basis for conferring ofthe rights on abolition of Zamindari. [Para 11] [687-F-G]

2. The land to be saved from vesting was required to beDunder personal cultivation i.e., Khud-kasht, but besides it musthave been so recorded as “Khud-kasht” in the revenue paperbefore the date of vesting, i.e., 2007. Thus, there are threerequirements namely (i) personal cultivation as defined inSection 2 (c); (ii) entry in the record of right; and (iii) beforethe date of vesting, i.e., 2007.In case the land was so recordedEas Khud-kasht, but was not personally cultivated by theZamindar as specified in section 2(c), such land shall vest in State.[Para 12] [687-H; 688-A-B]

3. In the present case the rights have been claimed undersection 158 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 on theFground that the predecessors of the plaintiff were pakka tenantsand acquired Bhumiswami rights under section 158 of M.P. LandRevenue Code, 1959. Under section 37(1) of Madhya PradeshZamindari Abolition Act, “pakka tenancy” rights were conferredupon only on such a proprietor with respect to the land underGhis possession as Khud-kasht land as per section 2(c) read withsection 4(2). [Para 19] [691-D]

4. When this Court considers the entry of 2007 placed onrecord by the plaintiff, it is apparent that Survey No.77, 191, 195and 199 are recorded as “Bir land.” Concerning survey No.83Halso finding recorded by the trial court and a first appellate court is that the same was recorded as “Bir land,” i.e., “grassland.”The plaintiffs/ respondents has submitted that at least concerningSurvey No.77, entry of cultivation of ‘Jwar’ was recorded inColumn No.5.Whereas in Column No.21 and 22 there was theentry of the ‘Bir.’ [Para 20] [691-E-F]

5. It is apparent from Khasra entries before the date ofvesting; in the relevant Samvat year 2007, the land is notrecorded as Khud-kasht of the erstwhile zamindars, i.e.,predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs. The land not being sorecorded as Khud-kasht in the revenue papers before the dateof vesting, the mandatory requirement of section 4(2) of theAbolition Act, is not fulfilled. Such land is not saved from vestingunder section 4(1) of the Abolition Act, 2003 as a cultivable,barren or Bir land vested in the State automatically free fromall encumbrances. Thus, the grassland, i.e., ‘bir’ land as persection 4(1) of the Act vested in the State. [Para 21] [691-G-H;692-A]

6. Apart from that requirement of section 2(c), there hadto be personal cultivation of the land by the Zamindar was notfulfilled. The land was required to be personally cultivated eitherby Zamindars himself or through employees or hired labourers.There was no personal cultivation recorded in revenue papersof erstwhile Zamindars and land was also not so recorded asKhud-kasht land. [Para 22] [692-B]

7. Bir land is vested in State under Section 4(1). The grassis naturally grown without effort, and it cannot be said to beproduced by way of rendering one’s labour or through employeesor hired labour. The land should have been under Khud-kashti.e., personal cultivation and so recorded of the ex-proprietorto be saved from vesting as statutorily mandated. There is aspecific provision in Section 4(1) of the Abolition Act that thegrassland, i.e., ‘Bir land,’ held by the proprietor automaticallyvested in the State free from all encumbrances. In which caseland lying fallow also vested in the State. [Para 25] [693-A-B]

8. About entries in revenue record Trial Court and FirstAppellate Court, have recorded a concurrent finding of fact thatthe land was not under personal cultivation. It was not open tothe High Court to interfere with the findings of fact, which was A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Abased on the proper appreciation of evidence on record. Eventhe plaintiff was unable to state whether there was any crop inthe relevant year 2007 before Zamindari abolition. Such findingof fact based on proper appreciation of evidence could not havebeen interfered with by the High Court within the ken of Section100, CPC. [Para 29] [694-C-D]B

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7991of 2019.

From the Judgment and Order dated 01.02.2013 by the HighCourt of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Second Appeal No.413Cof 1996

Harsh Parashar, Adv. for the Appellant.

Vikas Upadhyay, Ashwin Kumar Nair, Yogesh Tiwari, AkshatShrivastava, Yogesh Tiwari, Vikarant Sing Bais, Advs. for theRespondents.D

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARUN MISHRA, J.

1. The question involved in the appeal is whether the landrecorded in the revenue papers before the date of vesting as ‘Grass’Eland can be treated as khud-kashtland of Ex-Zamindar.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs/ respondents, as thesuccessor of the Ex-Zamindar. At the time of the abolition of Zamindari,it was recorded as ‘Grass’ land, in the name of their predecessor. Theyprayed for declaration of Bhumiswami rights and permanent injunction,Frestraining the defendants from interfering in their possession of theland comprised in Survey Nos.77, 83, 191, 195 and 799 correspondingto new Survey Nos.37, 103 and 460 total area 83 Bighas 4 Biswassituated in village Enchada, Tehsil Nateran, District Vidisha in the Stateof Madhya Pradesh. The defendant – State of Madhya Pradesh treatedplaintiffs/respondents as encroacher of agricultural land, and they wereGthreatened with dispossession on 1.5.1980 and 12.10.1980, whereas theyhave acquired the rights of Bhumiswami under provisions contained inMadhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code as they became Pacca tenanton the abolition of Zamindari. The plaintiffs/ respondents claimed thatthe land was Khud-kasht land of their predecessors; Nirbhay Singh andHPratap Singh who were Zamindars of Village Enchada.

3. The State Government in the written statement denied theplaint averments. However, it was admitted that Nirbhay Singh andPratap Singh, the predecessors were the Zamindars of the villageEnchada. The land was not a Khud-kasht land. It was recorded as‘Bir,’ i.e., ‘Grass’ land before coming into force of the M.B. ZamindariAbolition Act.

4. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Courtaffirmed the same; however, the High Court allowed the second appealand decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. They have been declared tobe Bhumiswami of the land, and the permanent injunction has also beengranted. Aggrieved thereby the appeal has been preferred by the Stateof Madhya Pradesh.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Statethat land was not ‘Khud-kasht’ land. The High Court could not havereversed the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court andthe first appellate court in the second appeal. The judgment is basedon the misreading of the Khasra entries and provisions of Section 2(c),and Section 4(2) of the Zamindari Abolition Act have not been correctlyinterpreted.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/respondents submitted that growing of Grass was also an agriculturalpurpose. In Khasra for Survey No.77 for Samvat year 2007, cultivationof crop of “Jwar” was mentioned, though in Col.5 thereof. Thus, thesaid survey No.77 did not vest in the State. The remaining land wasGrassland under personal cultivation of Zamindars as such it did notvest in the State. Nirbhay Singh and Pratap Singh became pakka tenantof the disputed land and ultimately acquired the rights of Bhumiswami.

7. The main question for consideration is whether the plaintiffacquired the rights of Pakka tenant under the Zamindari Abolition Actand that of Bhumiswami under the provisions of section 158 of MadhyaPradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereafter referred to as “M.P.Land Revenue Code, 1959”).

8. The Zamindari system came to be abolished on 2.10.1951 inthe erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat. The Zamindari Abolition Act,had been reserved under Article 31(4) of the Constitution of India forthe consideration of the Hon’ble President and received his assent in1951 and was enforced with effect from 2.10.1951, resulting into the A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

Aabolition of intermediaries. The same was enacted for the publicpurpose of the improvement of agriculture, and financial condition ofagriculturist by abolition and acquisition of rights of proprietors in thevillage, muhals, chak or blocks settled on Zamindari system which usedto be a system of keeping an intermediary between the State and thetenants.B

9. Section 3 of the Zamindari Abolition Act provided for vestingof proprietary rights in the State, and the rights of the proprietor shallpass from such proprietor to such other person, to and vests in the Statefree of all encumbrances. Section 4 provided for the consequence ofthe vesting of an estate in the State. As per section 4(1)(a) all rights,Ctitle and interest of the proprietor in such area, including land (cultivable,barren or Bir), forest, trees, fisheries, wells (other than private wells),tanks, ponds, water channels, ferries, pathways village-sites, hats, andbazaars and mela-grounds and in all sub-soil, including rights, if any, inmines and minerals, whether being worked or not shall cease and beDvested in the State free from all encumbrances automatically. Section 4(2) contains saving in favour of the proprietor to the extent that heshall continue to remain in possession of his Khud-kasht land sorecorded in the annual village papers on the date of vesting. Section2(c) defines the ‘Khud-kasht” to mean land personally cultivated byZamindars or through employees or hired labourers and includes sir land.

E

10. Section 2(c) and 4 of the Abolition Act are extractedhereunder:

“2. Definitions:-

(c) ”Khud-kasht” means land cultivated by the Zamindar himselfFor through employees or hired labourers and includes sir land;

4. Consequence by the vesting of an estate in the State. -(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act when the notificationunder Section 3 in respect of any area has been published in theGazette, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any contract,Ggrant or document or in any other law for the time being in force,the consequences as hereinafter set forth shall from the beginningof the date specified in such notification (hereinafter referred toas the dale of vesting) ensue, namely :- (a) all rights, title and interest of the proprietor in such area,including land (cultivable, barren or Bir), forest, trees, H

fisheries, wells (other than private wells), tanks, ponds, waterchannels, ferries, pathways village-sites, hats, and bazarsand mela-grounds and in all sub-soil, including rights, if any,in mines and minerals, whether being worked or not shallcease and be vested in the State free from allencumbrances; ….

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), theproprietor shall continue to remain in possession of his Khud-kashtland, so recorded in the annual village papers before the date ofvesting.

(3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall operate as a barto the recovery by the outgoing proprietor of any sum whichbecomes due to him before the date of vesting in virtue of hisproprietary rights.”

(emphasis supplied)

It is apparent from the provisions contained in section 4(1) itcontained non-obstante clause and that all rights and interest of theproprietor in the area of Zamindari including the land (cultivable, barrenor bir), etc. shall vest in the State automatically. What is saved withthe Zamindar was only the land which was under his Khud-kasht, i.e.,under his personal cultivation and not the land which was cultivable,barren or bir, i.e., grassland.

11. The requirement of section 4(2) of the Abolition Act is dualthat the land should not only be Khud-kasht, but it should be so recordedin the annual village papers before the date of vesting. As the date ofvesting was 2.10.1951, the agricultural year in the erstwhile MadhyaBharat commenced from 1[st] July to 30[th] June of the succeedingGregorian calendar year, the only relevant entry was before the dateof vesting, i.e., of Samvat 2007. The land is required to be so recordedas ‘Khud-kasht’ in the revenue papers before the date of vesting. As2.10.1951 fell in the Samvat year 2008, thus the entry in record of rightsof Samvat 2007 assumes significance as that has been made the basisfor conferring of the rights on abolition of Zamindari.

12. The land to be saved from vesting was required to be underpersonal cultivation i.e., Khud-kasht, but besides it must have been so A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Arecorded as “Khud-kasht” in the revenue paper before the date ofvesting, i.e., 2007. Thus, there are three requirements namely (i)personal cultivation as defined in Section 2 (c); (ii) entry in the recordof right; and (iii) before the date of vesting, i.e., 2007.In case theland was so recorded as Khud-kasht, but was not personally cultivatedby the Zamindar as specified in section 2(c), such land shall vest inBState.

13. With reference to Khud-kasht land so recorded as per section4(2) which was under personal cultivation as defined in section 2(c) ofthe Abolition Act, such a Zamindar acquired rights of pakka tenancy,in the land held by him, under the provisions of section 37 of theCAbolition Act. In case of tenant and sub-tenant, Conferral of pakkatenancy rights is dealt with under section 38 of the Abolition Act, 2003.We are concerned here with the rights of the proprietor in which the‘pakka tenancy’ rights were conferred under section 37(1) as to landso recorded as Khud-Kasht. The same is extracted hereunder:D

“37. Conferral of pacca tenancy rights on proprietor. - (1)Every proprietor whois divested of his proprietary rights in anestate, chak, block or Muhal shall, with effect from this date of-vesting, be a pacca tenant of the khudkasht land in his possessionand the land revenue payable by him shallbe determined at theErate fixed by the current settlement for the same kind of land.

(emphasis supplied)

14. The pakka tenant has been defined in section 54(vii), Part IIof the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, (Samvat 2007)F(Act No.66 of 1950). Besides that, the Zamindari Abolition Act conferredright of pakka tenant on a proprietor concerning the khudkasht land andso recorded in revenue papers before the date of vesting. Section 54(vii)of Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act is extractedhereunder:G“54.(vii) Pakka tenant – means a tenant who has been orwhose predecessor in interest had been lawfully recorded inrespect of his holding as a “Ryot Pattedar”, “Mamuli Maurusi”,“Gair Maurusi”, and “Pukhta Maurusi” when this Act comes intoforce or who may in future be duly recognized as such by aHcompetent authority.”

15. The pakka tenancy rights are conferred on a proprietorconcerning Khud-kasht land in his possession.

16. M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 was enacted on theformation of Madhya Pradesh and came into force w.e.f. 2.10.1959 tounify the law concerning land. Section 158 of M.P. Land Revenue Code,1959 provided classes/ categories which shall be called tenure holder,i.e., Bhumiswami. Section 158(1)(a) of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959conferred Bhumiswami rights on a tenant or Muafidar, etc. Provisionsof section 158 (1)(b) provided that ‘pakka tenant’ shall be calledBhumiswami in M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, in case he was a pakkatenant or a Maufidar, Inamdar or Concessional holder as defined inMadhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 (66 of1950). The provisions of section 158 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code,1959, read as under:

158. [1] Every person who at the time of coming into force ofthis Code, belongs to any of the following classes shall be calleda Bhumiswami and shall have all the rights and be subject to allthe liabilities conferred or imposed upon a Bhumiswami by orunder this Code, namely :- (a) every person in respect of land held by him in theMahakoshal region in Bhumisami or Bhumidhari rights inaccordance with the provisions of the Madhya PradeshLand Revenue Code, 1954 (II of 1955); (b) every person in respect of land held by him in the MadhyaBharat region as Pakka tenant or as a Muafidar, Inamdaror Concessional holder, as defined in the Madhya BharatLand Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 (66 of 1950)

(c) every person in respect of land held by him in the Bhopalregion as an occupant as defined in the Bhopal State LandRevenue Act, 1932 (IV of 1932); (d) (i) every person in respect of land held by him in theVindhya Pradesh region as a pachapan paintalis tenant,pattedar tenant, a grove holder or as a holder of tank asdefined in the Vindhya Pradesh Land Revenue and TenancyAct, 1953 (III of 1955)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

(ii) every person in respect of land (other than land whichis a grove or tank or which has been acquired or which isrequired for Government or public purposes) held by himin the Vindhya Pradesh region as a gair haqdar tenant andin respect of which he is entitled to a patta in accordancewith the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 57 of theRewa State Land Revenue and Tenancy Code, 1935.

(iii) every person in respect of land held by him as a tenantin the Vindhya Pradesh region and in respect of which heis entitled to a patta in accordance with the provisions ofsubsections (2) and (3) of section 151 of the VindhyaPradesh Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1953 (III) of1955), but has omitted to obtain such patta before thecoming into force of this Code, (e) every person in respect of land held by him in Sironj regionas a Khatedar tenant or as a grove holder as defined in theRajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (3 of 1955)

[(2) A Ruler of an Indian State forming part of the State ofMadhya Pradesh who, at the time of coming into force of thisCode, was holding land or was entitled to hold land as such Rulerby virtue of the covenant or agreement entered into by him beforethe commencement of the Constitution, shall, as from the dateof coming into force of this Code, be a Bhumiswami of such landunder the Code and shall be subject to all the rights and liabilitiesconferred and imposed upon a Bhumiswami by or under thisCode.”

17. For conferral of Bhumiswami rights on sub-tenants, theprocess of conferral of rights of occupancy tenant is provided undersection 185 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and the conferral ofBhumiswami rights on such occupancy tenants is provided under section190 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959.

18. Under section 185 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959every person who at the coming into force of the Code holds any ‘Inamland’ as a tenant or as a subtenant or as an ordinary tenant or any landas ryotwari sub-lessee as defined in the Madhya Bharat Ryotwari Sub-Lessees Protection Act, 1955, any Jagir land as defined in MadhyaBharat Abolition of Jagirs Act, 1951 as a subtenant or as a tenant of a subtenant, or any land of proprietor as defined in Madhya BharatZamindari Abolition Act, 1951 as a sub-tenant or as a tenant of asubtenant shall be called as “Occupancy Tenants”. Under section 189of MPLRC, 1959 right was given to a Bhumiswami, whose land is heldby an occupancy tenant, to resume the land within one year of thecoming into force of this Code, if he was holding the area of land underhis cultivation below twenty-five acres of unirrigated land. The rightwas given to him to apply for the resumption of the land held by hisoccupancy tenant for his cultivation and his failure to do so within thespecified period, Section 190 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959conferred the rights on the occupancy tenant of the Bhumiswami.Rights of Bhumiswami accrued to the occupancy tenant regarding theland held by him on the expiry of the period fixed for resumption ofthe land as specified in section 190(1).

19. In the present case the rights have been claimed undersection 158 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 on the ground thatthe predecessors of the plaintiff were pakka tenants and acquiredBhumiswami rights under section 158 of M.P. Land Revenue Code,1959. Under section 37(1) of Madhya Pradesh Zamindari Abolition Act,“pakka tenancy” rights were conferred upon only on such a proprietorwith respect to the land under his possession as Khud-kasht land asper section 2(c) read with section 4(2).

20. When we consider the entry of 2007 placed on record bythe learned counsel on behalf of the plaintiff, it is apparent that SurveyNo.77, 191, 195 and 199 are recorded as “Bir land.” Concerning surveyNo.83 also finding recorded by the trial court and a first appellate courtis that the same was recorded as “Bir land,” i.e., “grassland.” Learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs/ respondents has submittedthat at least concerning Survey No.77, entry of cultivation of ‘Jwar’was recorded in Column No.5.Whereas in Column No.21 and 22 therewas the entry of the ‘Bir.’

21. It is apparent from Khasra entries before the date of vesting;in the relevant Samvat year 2007, the land is not recorded as Khud-kasht of the erstwhile zamindars, i.e., predecessor in interest of theplaintiffs. The land not being so recorded as Khud-kasht in the revenuepapers before the date of vesting, the mandatory requirement of section4(2) of the Abolition Act, is not fulfilled. Such land is not saved fromvesting under section 4(1) of the Abolition Act, 2003 as a cultivable, A

B

C

D

E

F

GH

Abarren or Bir land vested in the State automatically free from allencumbrances. Thus, the grassland, i.e., ‘bir’ land as per section 4(1)of the Act vested in the State.

22. Apart from that requirement of section 2(c), there had to bepersonal cultivation of the land by the Zamindar was not fulfilled. TheBland was required to be personally cultivated either by Zamindars himselfor through employees or hired labourers. There was no personalcultivation recorded in revenue papers of erstwhile Zamindars and landwas also not so recorded as Khud-kasht land.

23. It is submitted that growing of Grass is an agricultural purposeCunder section 55 of Madhya Bharat Land Revenue Tenancy Act, asthere was an entry of ‘grass,’ i.e., ‘Bir’ in the revenue paper of SamvatYear 2007 before the date of vesting, such grassland did not vest inthe State. Section 55 is extracted hereunder:

“55. Duties of a tenant – A tenant shall use his holding onlyDfor agricultural purposes namely:-

i) the growth of any crops, except such as may, from time totime, be prohibited by the Government; or

ii) the growth of Grass or food for cattle; or

iii) the growth of trees; orE

iv) the erection of a dwelling house for his domestic use; or

v) the erection of such buildings or other structures as he mayreasonably require for the purpose of his agriculture; or

iv) the construction and maintenance of any work of the kindFdescribed in section 56.”

24. No doubt about it that a tenant was required to use his holdingfor agricultural purposes. The growth of Grass or food for cattle interalia was one of the agricultural purposes. In our opinion, there is norequirement for a tenant personally to cultivate the land as on the dateGof abolition as such provision lends no help to a proprietor. The rightsof the proprietor are quite different. The rights of the proprietor arelimited to land cultivated personally and so recorded as required underthe provisions of the Abolition Act, instrumental for bringing the agrarianreforms and conferred the rights on the actual tiller of the land byHremoving the intermediaries.

25. Bir land is vested in State under Section 4(1). The grass isnaturally grown without effort, and it cannot be said to be produced byway of rendering one’s labour or through employees or hired labour.The land should have been under Khud-kasht i.e., personal cultivationand so recorded of the ex-proprietor to be saved from vesting asstatutorily mandated. There is a specific provision in Section 4(1) ofthe Abolition Act that the grassland, i.e., ‘Bir land,’ held by the proprietorautomatically vested in the State free from all encumbrances. In whichcase land lying fallow also vested in the State.

26. Now we come to entry of Samvat year of 2007. There ispresumption of correctness of Khasra entries under section 52 ofMadhya Pradesh Land Revenue Tenancy Act unless the contrary isproved. Section 52 is extracted hereunder:

“52. Presumption as to entries in Annual Village Papers –All entries made under this Chapter in the Annual Village Papersshall be presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved.”

27. The Khasra in the relevant year in Samvat year 2007 as toSurvey No.77 contains the entry of crop of ‘Jwar’ in Column No.5which is meant for recording the name of tenants, his father’s name,caste, and residence and the nature of his rights. The Columns to recordthe cultivation of crop of Kharib and Rabi are Column Nos.10 to 15.All these columns are empty in the Khasra concerning all the disputedsurvey numbers, and when we come to the column containing an entryfor the land lying uncultivated, there was the entry of ‘bir’ land, whichhas been scored out. Thus, the entry makes it clear that it was not sorecorded as Khud-kasht land and there was no personal cultivation assuch the land automatically vested in the State under Section 4(1) ofAbolition Act.

28. The tenancy can be proved by Khasras entries alone. Therevenue entries carry a statutory presumption of correctness under theprovisions of Section 52 and unless rebutted, the statutory presumptionof correctness attached to the entries is an inevitable one. Unless suchthe presumption is rebutted, entries cannot be discarded. The entryproduced of 2007 is not as per the rules, it contains an entry of ‘Jwar’in column No.5 which is not meant for recording such cultivation andin the Khasra column 21 and 22 which originally recorded ‘Bir,’ i.e.,Grassland. Both entries are irreconcilable with each other. The entrieshave been made of ‘Jwar’ cultivation in a column not meant for ABC

D

EF

G

H

ABC

D

EF

G

H

Arecording cultivation, the entry is ex-facie spurious manipulated one,impermissible and inconceivable and is against instructions containedin Kawayad patwariyan, as such no presumption of it being correctcan be drawn under the provision of Section 52 of Madhya BharatLand Revenue Tenancy ActThe entry which is on the face of it hasbeen illegally made and is contradicted by the original entries in ColumnBNos.21 and 22 in the same Khasra. Even otherwise land is not recordedas Khud-kasht land.

29. About entries in revenue record Trial Court and FirstAppellate Court, have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that theland was not under personal cultivation. It was not open to the HighCCourt to interfere with the findings of fact, which was based on theproper appreciation of evidence on record. Even the plaintiff wasunable to state whether there was any crop in the relevant year 2007before Zamindari abolition. Such finding of fact based on properappreciation of evidence could not have been interfered with by theDHigh Court within the ken of Section 100, CPC.

30. The decision of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in BheronSingh vs. Government of M.P., 1983 R.N. 243 has been relied upon,on behalf of the plaintiffs/ respondents, in which the entry of “Bir” land,i.e., Grass Land came up for consideration, which was made in theEcolumn of ‘Alavajot’ i.e., not under plough. The plaintiff in the said casewas erstwhile Zamindar of the suit land, and it was recorded as‘Khudkasht land.’ We are unable to accept the proposition mentionedabove as the provision of section 4(1) of the Abolition Act, 2003 hadnot been considered in Bheron Singh (supra). Where ‘Bir’ land vestsin the State and only the land under personal cultivation as defined inFsection 2(c) and so recorded as Khud-Kasht as per section 4(2), wassaved from vesting. ‘Grass’was recorded in Alavajot column i.e., inarea not under plough. The decision in Bhairon Singh (supra) cannotbe said to be laying down good law, as such it is overruled.

31. Resultantly, the judgment and decree passed by the HighGCourt deserves to be and are set aside. The judgment and decree passedby the Trial Court are restored. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Nocosts.

Ankit GyanH