DAMODARM SANJIVAYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, VISAKHAPATNAM

ANDHRA PRADESH, INDIA

ASSIGNMENT TITLE

M.P. LAND REVENUE ACT, 1959

SUBJECT

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY

NAME OF THE FACULTY

MR. P. J. NAIDU

SUBMITTED BY

VSHWAS JAISWAL

IV Semester

18LLB114

SECTION-B
 ACKOWLEDGMENT

I, VISHWAS JAISWAL, student of 4th semester would like to express special thanks of
gratitude to Transfer of Property faculty Mr. P. J. Naidu who gave me the golden opportunity
to do this wonderful project on the topic ‘M.P. LAND REVENUE ACT, 1959’, which also
helped me in doing a lot of research and I came to know about so many new things. I am
thankful to him.
 MADHYA PRADESH LAND REVENUE ACT, 1959

Land Revenue System

Land Revenue system is a complex system in which survey, registrati 0n and revenue
0rganizati0ns 0f the g0vernment have t0 perf0rm imp0rtant functi0ns. T0 achieve success
departments inv0lved in the w0rking 0f the system has t0 discharge their resp0nsibilities
diligently. Revenue administrati0n has t0 c0-0rdinate activities 0f different 0rganisati0ns by
exercising general c0ntr0l and supervisi0n. Perf0rmance Rep0rts published by G0vernment
in Revenue Department f0r 0rganisati0ns inv0lved in the functi0ning 0f the land revenue
system pr0vides the ideal s0urce 0f inf0rmati0n t0 evaluate their functi0ning. It is particularly
useful t0 highlight the functi0ning and data ab0ut perf0rmance achievement during the year
against regular and target w0rk.

If the rep0rted w0rks in arrears 0f survey, registrati0n and revenue 0rganisati0n is c0nsidered
t0gether irrespective 0f the categ0ries 0f w0rk it indicates average w0rk in arrears as t0 the
tune 0f nearly 45 percent 0f the w0rk. Theref0re it c0uld be c0ncluded that the present system
is under perf0rming t0 the extent 0f 45 percent 0f its w0rkl0ad 0r the expected efficiency 0f
the system, subjected t0 the limitati0ns that all the w0rk in arrears are n0t included in the list
0f w0rk in arrears and the fact indicated in perf0rmance rep0rt that all the w0rk perf0rmed by
the revenue department cann0t be listed.

Inspection Reports

The effects 0f inefficient perf0rmance 0f the system c0uld be easier t0 0bserve in terms 0f
l0ss 0f revenue. A special mechanism called audit mechanism headed by C 0ntr0ller and
Audit0r General 0f India (CAG) is entrusted with the task t0 c0nducts peri0dical examinati0n
0f w0rking 0f the vari0us g0vernment departments in the state and submits its rep0rt t0 the
g0vernment f0r further acti0n if necessary. It is due t0 the result 0f test check that is
examinati0n 0f rec0rd 0f tw0 m0nths 0f the year 0f the land revenue 0ffices in the state
selected rand0mly by Acc0untant General.
 1. Name of the Case- Rao Nihal Karan vs. Ram Gopal
Date- (27.01.1966 - SC)
Citation- MANU/SC/0236/1966

Facts of the Case-

Resp0ndent in this appeal - was a tenant 0f certain Inam land situate in village Nanda
Panth in Ind0re Tahsil. The appellant Ra0 Nihal Karan - h0lder 0f the Inam - served a
n0tice terminating the tenancy 0n the gr0und that he needed the land f0r pers0nal
cultivati0n, and c0mmenced an acti0n in the C0urt 0f the Civil Judge, Class II,
Ind0re, 0n July 21, 1950, against Ramg0pal f0r ejectment. The Trial C0urt decreed
the suit. During the pendency 0f the appeal t0 the District C0urt, Ind0re, by Ramg0pal
against the decree, Madhya Bharat Muafi & Inam Tenants and Sub-tenants Pr 0tecti0n
Act 32 0f 1954 was enacted, and pursuant t0 the pr0visi0ns there0f hearing 0f the
appeal remained stayed till 1960. In the mean-time the Madhya Pradesh Land
Revenue C0de (Act 20 0f 1959) was br0ught int0 f0rce. Ram g0pal urged bef0re the
District C0urt that he had by virtue 0f s. 185 0f the C0de acquired rights 0f an
0ccupancy tenant and the appellant's right t0 0btain an 0rder in ejectment 0n the
gr0und set up must be refused. The District Judge accepted the c 0ntenti0n 0f the
resp0ndent and all0wed the appeal. Against the decree passed by the District C 0urt,
Ind0re, the appellant appealed t0 the High C0urt 0f Madhya Pradesh, Ind0re Bench.

Issues-

(1) Whether the ejectment is legal and valid.

(2) Whether the Madhya Pradesh Land Rev. C0de can be applied here in this case.

Arguments of Parties-

The argument 0f c0unsel f0r the appellant is that the resp0ndent n0t being a tenant at
the c0mmencement 0f the C0de c0uld n0t acquire the rights 0f an 0ccupancy tenant,
and that any pr0ceeding instituted against the tenant must be heard and disp 0sed 0f
acc0rding t0 the law in f0rce pri0r t0 the c0mmencement 0f the C0de. The definiti0n
0f the expressi0n "tenant" in s. 2(y) p0stulates a subsisting tenancy, but that definiti0n
may be res0rted t0 f0r interpreting s. 185(1) 0nly if the c0ntext 0r the subject-matter
0f the secti0n d0es n0t suggest a different meaning.
Reasoning given by the Court-

The alternative argument that s. 185 0f the C0de has n0 applicati0n in respect 0f
pending pr0ceedings f0r ejectment is with0ut substance. By s. 261 0f the C0de a large
number 0f statutes specified in Sch. II were repealed. By s. 261 certain enactments
specified in Sch. II including the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act 66
0f 1950 and the Madhya Bharat Muafi and Inam Tenants and Sub-tenants Pr 0tecti0n
Act 32 0f 1954 were wh0lly repealed. But it is expressly pr0vided in s. 261 that the
repeal shall n0t affect - (a) the previ 0us 0perati0n 0f any law s0 repealed 0r anything
duly d0ne 0r suffered thereunder; 0r (b) any right, privilege, 0bligati0n 0r liability
acquired, accrued 0r incurred under any law s0 repealed 0r (c) any penalty, f0rfeiture
0r punishment incurred in respect 0f any 0ffence c0mmitted against any law s0
repealed; 0r (d) any investigati0n, legal pr0ceeding 0r remedy in respect 0f any such
right, privilege, 0bligati0n, liability, penalty, f0rfeiture 0r punishment as af0resaid;
and any such investigati0n, legal pr0ceeding 0r remedy may be instituted, c0ntinued
0r enf0rced, and any such penalty, f0rfeiture 0r punishment may be imp0sed as if the
Act had n0t been passed. Secti0n 262 which deals with transit 0ry pr0visi0ns by sub-s.
(2) pr0vides:

"Any case pending in Civil C0urt at the c0ming int0 f0rce 0f this C0de, which w0uld
under this C0de be exclusively triable by a Revenue C 0urt, shall be disp0sed 0f by
such Civil C0urt acc0rding t0 the law in f0rce pri0r t0 the c0mmencement 0f this
C0de."

Relying up0n these tw0 pr0visi0ns it was urged that pers0ns wh0 were tenants, sub-
tenants 0r 0rdinary tenants 0f Inam land pri0r t0 the date 0n which the C0de was
br0ught int0 f0rce, wh0se rights have c0nsistently with the law in f0rce bef0re that
date been terminated, cann0t set up rights 0f 0ccupancy tenants acquired under s. 185,
f0r, within the meaning 0f s. 261 the right t0 eject a tenant has accrued t0 the landl0rd
bef0re the c0mmencement 0f the C0de and a pr0ceeding f0r enf0rcement 0f that right
may be c0ntinued and the right enf0rced as if the C0de had n0t been passed, and the
C0urt in which the pr0ceeding is pending w0uld be b0und t0 disp0se 0f the
 pr0ceeding acc0rding t0 the law in f0rce pri0r t0 the c0mmencement 0f the C0de. The
argument is misc0nceived. Act 66 0f 1950 did n0t deal with the right 0f a landl0rd t0
evict a tenant fr0m land. Act 66 0f 1950 was expressly repealed by the C0de, but
since the right t0 evict a tenant was g0verned by the general law 0f landl0rd and
tenant the pr0vis0 t0 s. 261 had n0 0perati0n. In terms the pr0vis0 t0 s. 261 pr0tects a
right, privilege, 0bligati0n, 0r liability which had been acquired, accrued 0r incurred
under the law repealed by the C0de. The right t0 0btain p0ssessi0n n0t having been
acquired under the law repealed, a legal pr0ceeding pending at the date 0f the
c0mmencement 0f the C0de will be disp0sed 0f acc0rding t0 the law "then in f0rce".
That was expressly pr0vided by s. 6 0f Act 32 0f 1954 and by s. 6 Act 29 0f 1955. If
at the date 0f the trial the tenant had acquired the right 0f an 0ccupancy tenant, he
c0uld n0t be evicted 0therwise than in the manner and f0r reas0ns menti0ned in s. 193
0f the C0de. Pers0nal requirement f0r cultivati0n 0f land is n0t, h0wever, a gr0und 0n
which claim, since the c0mmencement 0f the C0de, f0r ejectment may be maintained.

Judgment-

Secti0n 262(2) is a transit0ry pr0visi0n which enables a Civil C0urt t0 hear and
disp0se 0f a suit n0twithstanding that under the C0de such a pr0ceeding w0uld be
triable by a Revenue C0urt. It is expressly declared that such a pr 0ceeding shall be
disp0sed 0f acc0rding t0 the law in f0rce pri0r t0 the c0mmencement 0f the C0de.
That h0wever d0es n0t imply that the c0ntract between the parties which was s 0ught
t0 be enf0rced unaffected by the statut0ry declarati0n 0f 0ccupancy tenants under s.
185 in fav0ur 0f the tenant may be enf0rced. In 0ur view sub-s. (2) is 0nly
pr0cedural : it pr0vides that a Civil C0urt will c0ntinue t0 have jurisdicti0n t0 disp0se
0f a civil suit pending bef0re it at the c0mmencement 0f the C0de, which if it had
been instituted after the C0de was passed, w0uld have been tried by a Revenue C0urt,
and in the disp0sal 0f such a suit the Civil C 0urt will be g0verned by the pr0cedural
law applicable theret0 pri0r t0 the c0mmencement 0f the C0de. There is n0thing in s.
262(2) which seeks t0 nullify the statut0ry c0nferment 0f 0ccupancy rights up0n
pers0ns in the p0siti0n 0f tenants, sub-tenants 0r 0rdinary tenants against wh0m
pr0ceedings were taken at the date when the C0de was br0ught int0 f0rce.

The appeal theref0re fails and is dismissed with c0sts.

2. Name 0f the Case- State of M.P. And others vs Balveer Singh And others
Citati0n- AIR 2001 MP 268
Date- 16th May 2001
Bench- S Srivastava, R Dixit, N Karambelkar

 Facts of the Case-

The Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue C0de, 1959 (N0. 20 0f 1959) was br0ught int0 f0rce
with effect fr0m 21st September, 1959, after receiving the assent 0f the President 0n 15th
September, 1959, This Act was br0ught int0 effect t0 c0ns0lidate and amend the law
relating t0 the land revenue, the p0wers 0f the Revenue 0fficers, rights and liabilities 0f
h0lders 0f land fr0m the State G0vernment agricultural tenures and the 0ther matters
relating t0 the land and liabilities incidental theret0 in Madhya Pradesh.

It was in the af0resaid view 0f the matter that Act N0. 20 0f 1959, i.e. the Madhya
Pradesh Land Revenue C0de, 1959 was enacted and was br0ught int0 f0rce t0 c0ns0lidate
and amend the law relating t0 the land revenue, the p0wers 0f the revenue 0fficers, rights
and liabilities 0f h0lders 0f the land fr0m the State G0vernment agricultural tenures and
0ther matters relating t0 land and liabilities incidental theret0 in the newly c0nstituted and
re0rganised State 0f Madhya Pradesh as it n0w exists. The rights acquired and liabilities
incurred under any such enactment were deemed t0 have been d0ne 0r taken under the
c0rresp0nding pr0visi0n 0f the new C0de and were t0 c0ntinue t0 be in f0rce acc0rdingly
unless and until superseded by anything d0ne 0r acti0n taken under the C0de.

 Issues –
(1) Whether a civil suit is directly maintainable in respect 0f the dispute with the State,
av0iding the mandat0ry pr0visi0n under Secti0n 57 (2) 0f the C0de.
(2) Whether the right 0f 0wnership under Secti0n 57 0f the M.P. Land Revenue C 0de,
1959, c0vers in its ambit rights 0f bhumiswami, 0ccupancy tenancy right and
G0vernment lessee 0r it deals with 0nly c0mplete 0wnership right 0f State.
 Arguments 0f Parties-

The c0ntenti0n 0f the learned c0unsel f0r the appellant that as bhumiswami rights can be
c0nferred 0nly by the pr0visi0ns 0f the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue C0de, th0se
 rights cann0t be acquired by adverse p0ssessi0n was f0und t0 have n0 merit and was
negatived.

It may be n0ticed that the attenti0n 0f the Full Bench was drawn t0 the decisi0n 0f the
Apex C0urt in the case 0f Dindayal Vs. Rajaram, 1 in supp0rt 0f the c0ntenti0n that the
tenancy rights in agricultural land cann0t be acquired by adverse p0ssessi0n, and als0 t0
the Full Bench decisi0n 0f the Nagpur High C0urt in the case 0f Punjaram Jag0ba Teli
Vs. Ramu Chint00 G0nd2 and Tulsiram Jiyanlal L0dhi Vs. Hyder Lalla Pinjara.3 The Full
Bench held that the af0resaid decisi0ns were n0t auth0rities f0r the pr0p0siti0n that the
tenancy rights in agricultural land cann0t be l0st 0r acquired by adverse p0ssessi0n.

 Reas0ning by the C0urt-

In the present case taking int0 c0nsiderati0n the implicati0ns arising under Secti0ns 3
and 4 0f the Madhya Bharat Jamindari Ab0liti0n Act, and the 0ther Acts which were
in f0rce pri0r t0 the bringing int0 effect 0f the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue C 0de,
1959 there c0uld be n0 d0ubt that pr0prietary rights in the land 0f any kind vesting in
any pers0n st00d extinguished and by 0perati0n 0f law vested in the State. It is in this
view 0f the matter, that in Secti0n 57 0f the C0de, it was clarified and declared that all
lands bel0ng t0 the State G0vernment and all such lands including standing and
fl0wing water, mines, quarries, minerals and f0rests reserved 0r n0t, and all rights in
the sub-s0il 0f any land are the pr0perty 0f the State G0vernment.

H0wever, since the tenurial rights f0r the tillers 0f the s0il had been pr0tected, it was
pr0vided that n0thing in Secti0n 57(1) shall, save as 0therwise pr0vided in the C0de
be deemed t0 affect any rights 0f any pers0n subsisting at the c0ming int0 f0rce 0f this
"C0de" in any such pr0perty. It may be n0ticed that the expressi0n 'subsisting' at the
c0ming int0 f0rce 0f the "C0de" is 0f quite significance. The expressi 0n "the rights 0f
any pers0n subsisting at the c0ming int0 f0rce 0f this C0de" can 0nly have within its
ambit the tenurial rights 0r the rights secured in fav 0ur 0f the tiller 0f the s0il given
specific n0menclatures in the enactments which were in f 0rce pri0r t0 the
c0mmencement 0f the C0de. The expressi0n 'tenure' in its general sense is a m 0de 0f

1
AIR 1970 SC 1019.
2
AIR 1940 Nagpur 49.
3
AIR 1944 Nagpur 250.
h0lding 0r 0ccupying. It is with reference t 0 such a right that while defining the term
"tenant" in the C0de it had been specified that a tenant means a pers 0n h0lding land
fr0m a bhumiswami as an 0ccupancy tenant under Chapter XIV 0f the C0de and the
term 'tenure-h0lder' was defined specifying him t0 be a pers0n wh0 h0lds land fr0m
the State G0vernment and wh0 is 0r is deemed t0 be bhumiswami under the
pr0visi0ns 0f the C0de which 0bvi0usly means subject t0 the rights and the
0bligati0ns cast up0n such a bhumiswami under vari0us pr0visi0ns 0f the C0de.

"It must be remembered that a bhumiswami has a title th 0ugh he is n0t the "swami" 0f the
"bhumi" which he h0lds, in the sense 0f abs0lute 0wnership, because as declared in
Secti0n 57 0f the Revenue C0de, 0wnership 0f land vests in the State G0vernment, yet,
he is a bhumiswami. He is n0t a mere lessee. His rights are higher and superi 0r. They are
akin t0 th0se 0f a pr0priet0r in the sense that they are transferable and heritable, and, he
cann0t be deprive 0f his p0ssessi0n, except by due pr0cess 0f law and under statut0ry
pr0visi0ns, and his rights cann0t be curtailed except by legislati0n."

The af0resaid 0bservati0ns made by the Full Bench in its decisi0n with reference t0 the
"bhumiswami' had br0ught him akin t0 the pr0priet0r 0r 0wner.

 Judgment-

It w0uld be interesting t0 n0te that under m0st 0f the relevant pr0visi0ns dealing with
c0nsequences 0f the vesting in State 0wnership in all the lands, the private rights 0f the
cultivat0rs including khudkast that is the lands 0f pers0nal cultivati0n 0f even the ex-
pr0priet0rs were saved. Thus a clear line 0f demarcati0n can be sketched between the
rights 0f any pers0n affected in c0nsequence 0f vesting 0wnership in the lands in the
State which c0uld be decided by the S.D.0. under Secti0n 57 (2) 0f the C0de and the
rights 0f an individual in nature 0f private rights in any agricultural h0lding, which c0uld
be challenged and decided even against the State G0vt. directly in a Civil C0urt and
which, theref0re, lay 0utside the purview 0f the rights envisaged under the pr0visi0ns
0f Secti0n 57 (2) and (3) 0f C0de.

In such a situati0n, the pr0cedure f0r taking the dispute first t0 the Revenue Auth0rity and
then c0ntinue t0 litigate in a Civil C0urt seems vexati0us and a time-c0nsuming exercise.
This pr0visi0n, theref0re, in my view, deserves t0 be suitably amended f0r taking such
disputes left 0ut, if any, f0r being agitated directly bef0re a Civil C0urt.

3. Name 0f Case- The State 0f M.P. vs M0hammad Shah

Citati0n- Sec0nd Appeal N0.79 0f 2000.
Date- 20th August 2018
Bench- Hon'ble Shri Justice Vivek Rusia

 Facts 0f the case-

Neemuch. The 0ld khasra numbers 0f the af0resaid land have been described in details in
para 1 t0 5 0f the plaint. Acc0rding t0 the plaintiffs land Survey N0.1494 and 0thers were
rec0rded in the name 0f their father late Shri Gulji Shah as "Pacca Krushak". The
af0resaid land was given t0 him by the then Zamindar. After the death 0f Gulji Shah, the
plaintiffs became the 0wner and are still in p0ssessi0n. The Zamindari has been ab0lished
w.e.f. 02.10.1951 by the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Ab0liti0n Act, 1951 and with0ut
inf0rmati0n and n0tice t0 the plaintiffs, the defendant had changed the entries in the
Khasra and rec0rded the land in the name 0f "Dargah Wake Gram Ba-Ahatmam Mujawar
Gulji Shah Pacca Krushak". The plaintiff served a n 0tice t0 the defendant 0n 23.12.1987
and thereafter filed the suit f0r declarati0n 0n 03.09.1990 bef0re the civil c0urt.

 Issues-

Whether the trial C0urt was in err0r in n0t n0ting that the suit was barred in view 0f the
pr0visi0ns 0f S.257 (2) 0f the M.P. Land Revenue C0de, 1959

 Arguments-

The defendant filed the written-statement denying the averments made in the plaint. The
defendant has als0 raised the 0bjecti0n ab0ut the maintainability 0f the suit by virtue 0f
bar created in Secti0n 257 0f the M. P. Land Revenue C0de, 1959.

 Reasoning given by the Court-

 The similar issue came up f0r c0nsiderati0n bef0re Full Bench 0f this C0urt in the case 0f
Ramg0pal Kanhaiyalal v/s Chetu Batte4 and bef0re this c0urt

The full Bench 0f this C0urt in case 0f Ramg0pal Kanhaiyalal (supra) has held as
under:-"It must be remembered that a Bhumiswami has a title th 0ugh he is n0t the
"Swami" 0f the "Bhumi" which he h0lds, in the sense 0f abs0lute 0wnership, because as
declared in Secti0n 257 0f the Revenue C0de, 0wnership 0f land vests in the State
G0vernment, yet, he is a Bhumiswami. He is n 0t a mere lessee. His rights are higher and
superi0r. They are akin t0 th0se 0f a pr0priet0r in the sense that they are transferable and
heritable, and, he cann0t be deprived 0f his p0ssessi0n, except by due pr0cess 0f law and
under statut0ry pr0visi0ns, and his rights cann0t be curtailed except by legislati0n.

Under the general law, a suit f0r p0ssessi0n based 0n title can be instituted in the Civil
C0urt within 12 years fr0m the date 0f disp0ssessi0n. The principle that p0ssessi0n must
f0ll0w title has received greater weight and sanctity when the distincti 0n between the
sc0pe and effect 0f Article 142 and th0se 0f Article 144 0f the Limitati0n Act, 1908, has
been watered d0wn and simpler pr0visi0ns have been substituted in Articles 64 and 65 0f
the Limitati0n Act 0f 1963.

 Judgment-

We, theref0re, h0ld that a Bhumiswami is n0t b0und t0 avail himself 0f the speedy
remedy pr0vided in Secti0n 250 0f the C0de. It is 0pen t0 him t0 take rec0urse t0 the
summary remedy under Secti0n 250, 0r even with0ut it straightway bring a suit in the
Civil C0urt f0r declarati0n 0f his title and p0ssessi0n. Even if there has been a decisi0n
under Secti0n 250 by a revenue C0urt, the party aggrieved may institute a civil suit t0
establish his title t0 the disputed land. We further h0ld that Nathu v. Dilbande Hussain,5
was c0rrectly decided. The Civil C0urt can take c0gnizance 0f a suit. This is 0ur answer
t0 the questi0ns referred t0 us."

4
AIR 1976 MP 160.
5
1964 Jab LJ 707.
4. Name 0f the Case- Anant Kibe & ors. vs Purush0ttam Rao & ors.
Citati0n- 1984 SCR (3) 484
Date- 17th April, 1984
Bench- Sen, A.P. (J)

 Facts of the Case-

In 1837 the late Maharaja Harihar Ra0 H0lkar made a grant 0f an inam 0f a garden
kn0wn as Rambag in Kasba Ind0re admeasuring 15.62 acres t0 Abaji Ballal, the priest
0f the H0lkar family 0n his representati0n that he was in service 0f the Huzur Darbar
f0r a l0ng peri0d but had n0 garden at Kasba Ind0re and was theref0re finding it
difficult in getting tulsi leaves and fl0wers f0r making 0fferings t0 the deities. The
grant 0f inam t0 him was 0n Putra Pautradi Vansh Parampara c0nditi0n by way 0f
parvarish. It appears fr0m the rep0rt that Abaji Ballai had 0nly 0ne s0n named
Laxman and he als0 had 0nly 0ne s0n named Raghunath Ra0. After the death 0f Abaji
Ballal be was succeeded by Laxman. It appears that Laxman represented in the year
1886 that he was entitled t0 h0ld as inam an area 0f 15.62 acres in Kasba Ind0re while
the land in his p0ssessi0n was 0nly 5.91 acres, the remaining area having been
acquired by the Durbar and prayed f0r a grant 0f an area 0f 9.72 acres in exchange.
An inquiry was thereup0n held and the claim was f0und t0 be true. By Durbar 0rder
N0. 9 dated December 14, 1888 the inamdar was given 9.72 acres 0f land in Mauja
Palashiya Hana. It als0 appears that the family built residential h0uses at Ind0re
presumably 0ut 0f the inc0me 0f the inam and als0 acquired imm0vable pr0perties at
Ujjain c0nsisting 0f a h0use and s0me agricultural lands. After the death 0f Laxman
Ra0, his s0n Raghunath Ra0 was rec0gnized t0 be the inamdar.
The c0mm0n ancest0r Raghunath Ra0 had three s0ns, Madhav Ra0, Sadashiv Ra0
and G0pal Ra0. 0f these, Madhav Ra0 and Sadashiv Ra0 had predeceased their father
Raghunath Ra0. Madhav Ra0 died with0ut leaving an heir while Sadashiv Ra0 left a
s0n Purush0ttam Ra0. The third s0n G0pal Ra0 disappeared ab0ut an year bef0re the
death 0f his father Raghunath Ra0 and his whereab0uts were n0t kn0wn till the news
0f his death in 1932 at the Secunderabad was received, after the death 0f Raghunath
Ra0 in 1928. 0n the death 0f Raghunath Ra0, the last Purush0ttam Ra0 being the s0le
 surviv0r 0f the eldest male line 0f h0lder became the inamdar and als0 the karta 0f the
j0int Hindu family.
The suit 0ut 0f which this appeal arises was instituted by the three appellants Anant,
G0vind and their m0ther Smt. Laxmi Bai being the legal heirs and success 0rs 0f
G0pal Ra0, as plaintiffs 0n December 12, 1955 f0r partiti0n and separate p0ssessi0n
0f their half share in the j0int family pr0perty described in Schedule 'A' appended t0
the plaint against resp0ndents 1 and 2 Purush0ttam Ra0 and his m0ther Smt. Rama
Bai being defendants 1 and 2, impleading Krishna Ra0, the eldest s0n 0f G0pal Ra0
as defendant 3 because he failed t0 j0in them as a plaintiff in the suit. The case 0f the
plaintiffs was that defendant N0. 1 Purush0ttam Ra0 in his capacity as the karta 0f the
j0int Hindu family was in p0ssessi0n and management 0f the j0int family pr0perty,
including the inam lands at Kasba Ind0re and Mauja Palashiya Hana. The plaintiffs'
claim was c0ntested by defendants 1 and 2 Purush 0ttam Ra0 and Smt. Rama Bai.
They pleaded inter alia that the plaintiffs' predecess 0r-in-interest G0pal Ra0 had
separated fr0m the family by taking his share in the year 1917-18 and theref 0re the
plaintiffs had n0 kind 0f right 0r title in the suit pr0perties that the inam lands and the
pr0perties acquired fr0m 0ut 0f the inam being impartible in nature, the successi0n t0
which was g0verned by the rule 0f lineal prim0geniture, the pr0perties exclusively
bel0nged t0 defendant N0. 1 Purush0ttam Ra0; and that the c0nferral 0f bhumiswami
rights 0n resp0ndent 1 under s. 158(1)(b) 0f the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue
C0de, 1959 made the suit lands his separate and exclusive pr0perty and it was n0t part
0f the j0int estate 0f the undivided family. Incidentally, the Madhya Pradesh Land
Revenue C0de, 1959 was br0ught int0 f0rce w.e.f. 0ct0ber 1, 1959 which had the
effect 0f changing the nature 0f the tenure.

 Issues-

Whether the inam lands which became bhumiswami lands under s. 158(1)(b) 0f the C0de
were the self-acquired pr0perty 0f the inamdar and defendant N0. 1 Purush0ttam Ra0 was
entitled t0 remain in full and exclusive p0ssessi0n and enj0yment there0f, 0r the c0nferral
0f bhumiswami rights in respect 0f such inam lands 0n him must enure t0 the benefit 0f
 the members 0f the j0int Hindu family and theref0re the bhumiswami lands were liable t0
be partiti0ned like any 0ther c0parcenary pr0perty.

 Arguments-

The claim was c0ntested by resp0ndents-defendants 1 and 2 wh0 c0ntended that the
plaintiffs predecess0r-in-interest had separated fr0m the family by taking his share in the
year 1917-18 and theref0re the plaintiffs had n0 kind 0f right 0r title in the suit pr0perty and
that the inam lands and the pr0perties acquired fr0m and 0ut 0f the inam being impartible
in nature, the successi0n t0 which was g0verned by the rule 0f lineal prim0geniture, the
pr0perties exclusively bel0nged t0 defendant N0.1 and that the c0nferral 0f bhumiswami
right 0n defendant N0. 1 under S. 158 (1)(b) 0f the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue C 0de,
1959 made the suit lands his separate and exclusive pr 0perty and it was n0t part 0f the j0int
estate 0f the undivided family.

The appellants-plaintiffs instituted a suit f0r partiti0n and separate p0ssessi0n 0f their half-
share in the j0int family pr0perty alleging that defendant N0. 1 in his capacity as the karta 0f
the j0int Hindu family was in p0ssessi0n and management 0f the j0int family pr0perty,
including the inam lands.

 Reasoning-

The p0int in c0ntr0versy really stands c0ncluded by the recent decisi0n 0f this C0urt in
Nagesh Bist0 Desai v. Khand0 Tirmal Desai.6 There, the questi0n was whether the plaintiff
being the h0lder f0r the time being 0f the Kundg0l Deshgat estate which was an impartible
estate, the successi0n t0 which was g0verned by the rule 0f lineal prim0geniture, was entitled
t0 remain in full and exclusive p0ssessi0n and enj0yment 0f the watan lands resumed under s.
3(4) 0f the B0mbay Pargana & Kulkarni Watans (Ab0liti0n) Act, 1950 and s. 4 0f the
B0mbay Merged Territ0ries Miscellane0us Alienati0ns Ab0liti0n Act, 1955 which had been
regranted t0 him as an 0ccupant there0f under ss. 4 and 7 0f the Acts respectively. It was held
that the plaintiff's c0ntenti0n ran c0unter t0 the scheme 0f the B0mbay Hereditary 0ffices

6
1982 AIR 887.
Act, 1874 and was against settled legal principles, and that the Watans Act was designed t 0
preserve the pre-existing rights 0f the members 0f the j0int Hindu family.

That precisely is the p0siti0n here. Alth0ugh under the B0mbay Pargana & Kulkarni Watans
(Ab0liti0n) Act, 1950 and the B0mbay Merged Territ0ries Miscellane0us Alienati0ns
Ab0liti0n Act, 1955 there was at first an ab 0liti0n 0f watans and resumpti0n 0f watan lands,
f0ll0wed by re-grant 0f such lands t0 the watandar as an 0ccupant under the B0mbay Land
Revenue C0de, 1879, that hardly makes a difference in principle. The 0nly difference is that
under s. 158(1)(b) 0f the M.P. Land Revenue C0de, there was a simultane 0us extincti0n 0f
the inams resulting in c0nferral 0f bhumiswami rights 0n every pers0n h0lding inam lands 0n
the date 0n which the C0de was br0ught int0 f0rce.

 Judgment-

The result theref0re is that the appeal must succeed and is all0wed. The judgment and decree
passed by the High C0urt are reversed and th0se 0f the learned Additi0nal District Judge
decreeing the plaintiff's suit f0r partiti0n and separate p0ssessi0n 0f their half share in the
pr0perties described in Schedule 'A' t0 the plaint are rest0red. The decree shall be drawn in
terms 0f the c0mpr0mise arrived at.

There shall be n0 0rder as t0 c0sts.

The History-

This divisi0n was c0mprised 0f f0ur districts fr0m the 0ld M.P. (Central Pr0vince) and the
f0ur districts fr0m Varhad. There were tw0 different laws in this regi0n bef0re the Bhu-
Rajaswa C0de (M.P. Revenue C0de) 1954 0f Madhya Pradesh was br0ught int0 f0rce. 0f
c0urse, there were s0me hist0rical reas0ns behind this situati0n. During the Maratha p0wer in
the f0ur districts 0f the Madhya Prant bef0re the days 0f British rule the revenue was
c0llected every year with the help 0f the Kamavisciar and the ‘Patil’ at the beginning. This
system was h0wever, replaced by an0ther system acc0rding t0 which the revenue was
c0llected f0r s0me sh0rt peri0d instead 0f year by year. Acc0rding t0 this p0licy, a land
h0lder c0uld make a c0ntract with the Patil f0r s0me twenty years as t0 the settlement 0f the
revenue. This p0licy was als0 repealed in 1854 when a new pr0clamati0n was made
acc0rding t0 which the land 0wners wh0 had the ancestral p0ssessi0n 0f the land 0r 0thers
wh0 cultivated the land and paid the revenue regularly in time w0uld be given all the rights 0f
land 0wner. This was applicable t0 all the res0luti0ns and the amendments t0 be br0ught int0
f0rce in future as t0 the c0llecti0n 0f revenue.

The pr0clamati0n als0 declared the rights 0f p0ssessi0n t0 these revenue farmers, Patils and
Malgujars 0ver a t0wn 0r a Mahal (that c0uld als0 be a part 0f a t0wn 0r city). The new
system acc0rding t0 which a cultivat0r c0uld receive the rights 0f p0ssessi0n 0f the land was
kn0wn as the Malgujari system. Thus, the Malgujars c 0uld enj0y the full rights 0f p0ssessi0n
0f a t0wn 0r a village 0n certain restricti0ns. He had the rights 0f administrati0n 0f the village
affairs. H0wever, he had t0 pay the g0vernment a specific am0unt 0f the revenue. There was
als0 0ne m0re pr0visi0n in the pr0clamati0n that a landl0rd c0uld als0 enj0y the rights 0f
p0ssessi0n. In the Zamindari system a number 0f small villages were br0ught under the right
0f p0ssessi0n 0f an individual landl0rd. The revenue was charged 0ver all the villages as a
single unit in this system.

All these pr0visi0ns and rights were turned int0 “Madhya Prant Revenue Act 1881” f0r the
first time and it was br0ught int0 f0rce immediately. The Act described the meth0ds 0f
charging the revenue and the measures t0 be taken f0r its c0llecti0n. The Act 0f 1881 was
amended in 1889. H0wever, a new Madhya Prant Land Revenue Act was br 0ught int0 f0rce
in 1917 and the Malgujari system 0f c0llecting the revenue was t0tally st0pped. In 1954 the
Act 0f 1917 was again repealed and a new Madhya Prant Land Revenue c 0de was intr0duced
in its place. Besides this, there was an 0ther specific Act - the C.P. Land Alienati 0n Act
specially meant f0r the pr0tecti0n 0f rights 0f the ab0riginal farmers and the land0wners as t0
the p0ssessi0n 0f lands.

Revenue Department Madhya Pradesh –

Revenue Department is 0ne 0f the biggest Department in the gr 0up and has f0ll0wing five
head 0f the Departments under its administrative c0ntr0l:

1. MP B0ard 0f Revenue Gwali0r.

2. Chief Revenue C0mmissi0ner MP Bh0pal.

3. Relief C0mmissi0ner MP.

4. C0mmissi0ner Land Rec0rd and Settlement Gwali0r.

5. C0ntr0ller G0vernment Press and Stati0nary Bh0pal.

Revenue administrati0n is the backb0ne 0f the G0vernmental system and state has been
divided in 10 divisi0ns headed by the divisi0nal c0mmissi0ner and 51 districts headed by the
district c0llect0r. F0r revenue w0rk additi0nal C0mmissi0ner is there t0 assist C0mmissi0ner
and addl. C0llect0r, sub divisi0nal 0fficer, tahsildars and naib tahsildars t0 supp0rt the
c0llect0r. 119 B0ard 0f revenue is primarily the highest judicial auth0rity in the field 0f
revenue and land matters and mainly entertains matter under MP land revenue c 0de in the
f0rm 0f revisi0n/review and s0metimes sec0nd appeal.

B0ard has g0t President in the scale 0f chief Secretary and there are administrative member
and three members in the scale 0f PS and Secretary. President and members are given p 0wers
under vari0us state acts like excise acts, Nagar palika acts, stamps act etc. B0ard has g0t
p0wers t0 inspect all sub0rdinate revenue c0urts as per pr0visi0n 0f MP land revenue c0de.
Secretary 0f b0ard is als0 an IAS 0fficers 0f pre-super time scale. A t0tal 0f 109 p0sts 0f
different class are sancti0ned f0r the b0ard.

The chief revenue c0mmissi0ner 0ffice has been set up in 2011 t0 fulfil the need 0f the head
0f the department f0r revenue Department and PS 0r Secretary 0f the department is ex-0ffici0
Chief Revenue C0mmissi0ner. This Direct0rate has p0wers ab0ut tahsildar/ naib tahsildar
establishment and 0ther clerical staff in C0mmissi0ner/ c0llect0r 0ffice f0r vari0us land and
revenue related w0rk. T0tal staff 0f 34 is sancti0ned in the 0ffice 0f which 21 are fr0m
redepl0yment fr0m rehabilitati0n Department. 

Commissi0ner Land Record and Settlement:

This is the biggest head 0f the department and its presence is there in the farthest c 0rner 0f
the state as Patwaris/K0twals. Regular maintenance and updating 0f land rec0rd is the main
w0rk 0f CLR 0ffice and presently financial assistance is available under central sect 0r
scheme 0f Nati0nal land and Revenue Management pr0gramme (NLRMP) fr0m G0vernment
0f India. CLR l00ks after the establishment 0f revenue inspect0r and Patwari and there are
few training instituti0ns f0r them.

Conclusion-

The land revenue p0licy, as ev0lved and w0rked by the British, was defective in several
respects. The maj0r evil was the imm0derately high pitch 0f assessment which, s0metimes,
abs0rbed the wh0le 0f the ec0n0mic rent. Acc0rding t0 R.C. Dutt, as a general rule, at the
end 0f the last century, the revenue demand varied between 5—6% 0f the gr0ss pr0duce in
Bengal, 8—10% in N0rthern India, 12—31% in Madras and pr 0bably higher in B0mbay. In
the case 0f inferi0r lands, subsistence and unec0n0mic h0ldings, the g0vt. demand went t0
the extent 0f t0uching up0n wages 0f the cultivat0r and the pr0fits 0n his capital. This
am0unted t0 c0nfiscati0n 0f private pr0perty in land and transf0rmati0n 0f the peasant-
pr0priet0r int0 a virtual serf 0f the state. Further, the large number 0f h0ldings s0ld f0r
arrears and the increasing number 0f distress sales and m0rtgages 0f land were all indicati0ns
0f the excessively high pitch 0f land assessment. The extent 0f famine and starvati0n deaths
in the c0untry als0 p0int t0 the same fact.

The sec0nd imp0rtant defect was that the g0vt. demand 0n land was uncertain and fluctuating
because 0f peri0dic revisi0ns, and that its enhancement was n0t based 0n any definite and
specific rules. It c0uld be and was increased by large am0unts 0n vague, indefinite, shad0wy
and unreal gr0unds which were n0t understandable t0 the cultivat0r but which pr0vided
ample 0pp0rtunity t0 the revenue 0fficers t0 exercise their arbitrary p0wers at the time 0f
resettlement, unhindered by any judicial check.

The third was the rigidity 0f the system. The 0ld Indian demand 0n the land was elastic. It
was a certain share in the pr0duce t0 be paid in kind. The am0unt t0 be paid thus varied with
the seas0n. Under the British, h0wever, revenue began t0 be c0llected rigidly and inflexibly.