advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Friday, September 5, 2014

Sec. 158 and 250 of Revenue code and Sec.35 M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Land Holdings Act, 1960 - allotment of land with Bhumiswami Rights to the appellant who sold the same with in 2 years to the respondent - on application after 3 years of sale - collector order for re allotment of the same to the appellant and Thasildar order for restoration of land - respondent filed a civil suit - which was dismissed - first appeal was also dismissed - High court allowed the second appeal - Apex court held that we find that in the instant case the land, which was declared surplus land, was allotted by the State in purported exercise of power under Section 35 of the said Act giving Bhumiswami right to the appellants. The said allotment was made in the year 1973. Within two years from the date of the said allotment, the land was purchased by the respondent by sale deed dated 4.7.1975, which, according to the appellants, was without consideration and the respondent in connivance with the other persons managed to keep the appellants out of possession. Prima facie, therefore, the sale deed alleged to have been executed by the appellants in favour of the respondent on 4.7.1975 is null and void and the same does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the respondent-Sattar Khan.The trial court and the first appellate court, therefore, correctly recorded a finding that the sale deed, said to have been executed by the appellants in favour of the respondent, is null and void and is without consideration. The High Court while reversing the judgment has not considered these provisions contained in the M.P. Revenue Code. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and restore the judgment of the trial court. = CIVIL APPEAL NO.(s). 6471 OF 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.7039 of 2006) Tolya etc. ………Appellants Versus State of M.P. & Another etc. ……..Respondents = 2014 - Aug.Part - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41840

    Sec. 158 and 250 of Revenue code and Sec.35 M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Land Holdings Act, 1960 - allotment of land with Bhumiswami Rights to the appellant who sold the same with in 2 years to the respondent - on application after 3 years of sale - collector order for re allotment of the same to the appellant and Thasildar order for restoration of land - respondent filed a civil suit - which was dismissed - first appeal was also dismissed - High court allowed the second appeal - Apex court held that we find that in the  instant case the land, which was declared surplus land, was allotted  by  the  State in purported exercise of power under Section  35  of  the  said  Act  giving Bhumiswami right to the appellants.  The said  allotment  was  made  in  the year 1973.  
Within two years from the date of the said allotment,  the  land was purchased  by  the  respondent  by  sale  deed  dated  4.7.1975,  which, according to the appellants, was without consideration  and  the  respondent in connivance with the other persons managed to keep the appellants  out  of possession.  Prima facie, therefore, the sale  deed  alleged  to  have  been
executed by the appellants in favour of the respondent on 4.7.1975  is  null and void and the same does not  confer  any  right,  title  or  interest  in favour of the respondent-Sattar Khan.The trial court and the first appellate  court,  therefore,  correctly recorded a finding that the sale deed, said to have  been  executed  by  the appellants in favour of the respondent, is null  and  void  and  is  without consideration.  The  High  Court  while  reversing  the  judgment  has   not
considered these  provisions  contained  in  the  M.P.  Revenue  Code.   We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed  by the High Court and restore the judgment of the trial  court.  =

The land in dispute is  an  agricultural  land,  originally  owned  by
Jagannath Singh.
In a land ceiling proceedings initiated  against  Jagannath
Singh, under M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Land Holdings Act, 1960,  land  in
question was declared as surplus  land.  
Consequently,  it  vested  in  the
State Government, who in turn allotted the land to the  defendant-appellants
some times in the year 1973, under the Bhumiswami  Right,  purported  to  be
under Section 35 of the said Act.

4.    The appellants sold the said land allotted to them by sale deed  dated
4.7.1975 in favour of respondent No.2.
It appears  that  sometimes  in  the
year 1979 on a complaint, the Collector Shajapur, proceeded  to  revise  the
allotment and action was contemplated to re-allot the land according to  the
Rules.
The  respondent  filed  a  revision  against  the  decision  of  the
Collector before the Board of  Revenue,  where  the  allotment  of  land  in
favour of the appellants and subsequent  transfer  to  respondent  No.2  was
upheld.
5.    It further appears from the record that proceedings under Section  250
of the Land  Revenue  Code,  1959  was  initiated  for  restoration  of  the
property in favour of the appellants, who was illegally dispossessed  and  a
notice to that effect was issued to the  respondent  for  directing  him  to
hand over the land to the appellants, failing which the allotment  shall  be
cancelled.
The respondent then moved the Civil Court by  filing  suits  for
declaration  of  ownership  in  respect  of  the  said  property  which  was
dismissed by judgment dated 19.11.1998.= Appeal was also dismissed but High court reversed the same =

 We have perused the impugned order passed by the  High  Court.  
Prima
facie we are of the view that the High Court has not  correctly  appreciated
the law in this regard.
10.   Before we consider the contention made by the  counsel  appearing  for
the parties,
we would like to refer Sections 35 and 36 of the  M.P.  Ceiling
on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960.
The said section reads as under:-
“Section 35 - Allotment of surplus land  vesting  in  the  State  Government
under this Act-
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the  rules  framed  thereunder
surplus land vesting in the State under section  12  shall  be  allotted  in
Bhumiswami rights to  the  persons  mentioned  hereunder  in  the  order  of
priority as indicated therein on payment of  a  premium  equivalent  to  the
compensation payable in respect of such land --
(i) agricultural labourers,
(a) belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes; and
(b) others;
(ii)  joint  farming  society,  the  members  of  which   are   agricultural
labourers, or landless persons  whose  main  occupation  is  cultivation  or
manual labour on land, or a combination of such persons;
(iii)  better  farming  society,  the  members  of  which  are  agricultural
labourers, or landless persons  whose  main  occupation  is  cultivation  or
manual labour on land, or a combination of such persons;
(iv) freedom fighters;
(v) displaced tenants subject to  the  provisions  of  section  202  of  the
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (No. 20 of 1959);
(vi) holders holding contiguous land;
(vii) joint farming society of agriculturists;
(viii) better farming society of agriculturists;
(ix) any other co-operative farming society subject to  the  condition  that
land (including the land as owner or tenant individually by  members)  shall
not exceed the area equal  to  the  number  of  members  multiplied  by  the
ceiling area;
(x) an agriculturist holding land less than the ceiling area :
Provided that unless the State Government  otherwise  directs  surplus  land
consisting of compact area shall be either reserved for Government  farm  or
allotted to co-operative societies or any other public purpose.
Explanation I -- For the purpose of clause (iv), "freedom fighter"  means  a
person who by reason of  his  taking  part  in  any  national  movement  for
independence prior to the 15th August, 1947--
(i) had been awarded capital punishment; or
(ii) had to suffer imprisonment or detention  for  a  period  exceeding  six
months; or
(iii) had been permanently incapacitated on  account  of  injuries  infected
upon his person in firing or lathi charge; or
(iv) had to suffer loss of property, whether wholly or  partly  or  loss  of
employment or loss of his means of livelihood, and  includes  his  principal
heir where such person --
(a) was hanged in execution of the capital punishment; or
(b) died during the course of imprisonment or detention.
Explanation II -- For the purpose of Explanation I, "principal  heir"  means
the eldest son of the deceased or, if there is no son of  the  deceased  or,
if there is no son surviving, such  other  heir  of  the  deceased,  as  the
Collector may declare to be the principal heir.
(2) The premium payable under sub-section (1) may be paid  by  the  allottee
either in  a  lump  sum  within  six  months  of  the  commencement  of  the
agricultural year next following the date of allotment or  in  twenty  equal
instalments, the first instalment being payable on the commencement  of  the
agricultural year next following the date of allotment. If  the  premium  is
paid in instalments the unpaid balance of such premium shall carry  interest
at the rate of 3 per centum per annum with effect from  the  date  on  which
the first instalment falls due.
(3) Where the land allotted under Sub-section (1) is an orchard  other  than
banana gardens and vine yards,  the  allottee  shall  maintain  the  orchard
intact.

Section 36 – Recovery of premium in case of transfer of allotted land:-
Where land allotted under section 35 is transferred, the amount  of  premium
remaining unpaid in respect of such land shall be  a  first  charge  thereon
and shall be recoverable from the  transferee  in  the  same  manner  as  an
arrear of land revenue.”


11.   From a bare reading of  the  aforesaid  provision,  it  is  manifestly
clear that Section 35 makes  a  provision  for  allotment  of  surplus  land
declared under the Ceiling Act after vesting of  the  surplus  land  in  the
State.  According to this provision, the State shall allot the surplus  land
under “Bhumiswami right” to the persons mentioned thereunder  in  the  order
of priority.  First, the surplus land  shall  be  allotted  to  agricultural
labourers belonging to SC & ST and, thereafter, to other persons.

12.   “Bhumiswami Right” has not been defined  in  the  Ceiling  Act,  1960.
Section 158 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code 1959  defines  classes  of  tenure
and Bhumiswami.  Section 158 reads as under :-
158.  Bhumiswami
(1)  Every person who at the time of  coming  into  force
of this Code, belongs to any of the following  classes  shall  be  called  a
Bhumiswami and shall  have  all  the  rights  and  be  subject  to  all  the
liabilities conferred or imposed upon a Bhumiswami by or  under  this  Code,
namely –
……………..
……………..
……………..
……………..
……………..

(3)         Every person –

Who is holding land in Bhoomiswami right by virtue of  a  lease  granted  to
him by the State Government or the Collector or the Allotment Officer on  or
before the commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue code  (Amendment)
Act, 1992 from the date of such commencement, and;

To whom land is allotted in Bhumiswami right by the State Government or  the
Collector or the Allotment Officer after  the  commencement  of  the  Madhya
Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Amendment)  Act,  1992  from  the  date  of  such
allotment,

shall be deemed to be a Bhumiswami  in respect of such  land  and  shall  be
subject to all the rights and  liabilities  conferred  and  imposed  upon  a
Bhumiswami  or under this Code;

      Provided that no such person shall transfer such land within a  period
of ten years from the date of lease or allotment.

      Explanation- In this Section the expression      “Ruler”  and  ‘Indian
State” shall have the same meanings as are assigned to these expressions  in
clauses (22) and (15) respectively by article 366  of  the  Constitution  of
India.”
13.    Sub-section (3) of Section 158 clearly provides  that  land  allotted
by the State to any person giving ‘Bhumiswami right’ shall  have  all  right
to deal with the property.  However, proviso mandates that  such  Bhumiswami
shall not transfer land so allotted to him within  a  period  of  ten  years
from the date of lease or allotment.

14.   Section 250 of the Code is also worth to be quoted hereunder:-

“250. Reinstatement of Bhumiswami improperly dispossessed-

For the purpose of this Section and Section 250-A, Bhumiswami shall  include
occupancy tenant and Government lessee.
(1-a)  If a Bhumiswami  is dispossessed of the land otherwise  than  in  due
course of law or if any person unauthorisedly  continues  in  possession  of
any land of the Bhumiswami to the use  of  such  person  has  ceased  to  be
entitled under any provision of this Code, the Bhumiswami or  his  successor
in interest apply to the Tehsildar for restoration of the possession –
……………
……………
(2)………………
(3)………………
(4)……………….
(5)……………….
(6)……………….
(7)……………….
(8)………………
(9)………………..”

15.   In the light of the aforesaid provisions,
we find that in the  instant
case the land, which was declared surplus land, was allotted  by  the  State
in purported exercise of power under Section  35  of  the  said  Act  giving
Bhumiswami right to the appellants.  
The said  allotment  was  made  in  the year 1973.
Within two years from the date of the said allotment,  the  land
was purchased  by  the  respondent  by  sale  deed  dated  4.7.1975,  which,
according to the appellants, was without consideration  and  the  respondent
in connivance with the other persons managed to keep the appellants  out  of
possession.  
Prima facie, therefore, the sale  deed  alleged  to  have  been
executed by the appellants in favour of the respondent on 4.7.1975  is  null
and void and the same does not  confer  any  right,  title  or  interest  in
favour of the respondent-Sattar Khan.

16.   The trial court and the first appellate  court,  therefore,  correctly
recorded a finding that the sale deed, said to have  been  executed  by  the
appellants in favour of the respondent, is null  and  void  and  is  without
consideration.  
The  High  Court  while  reversing  the  judgment  has   not
considered these  provisions  contained  in  the  M.P.  Revenue  Code.   
We,
therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed  by
the High Court and restore the judgment of the trial  court.  
 Consequently,
the  suit  filed  by  the  respondent  is  dismissed.   Appeal  is   allowed
accordingly with no order as to costs.

2014 - Aug.Part - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41840


                                                               REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                     CIVIL APPEAL NO.(s). 6471  OF  2014
       (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.7039 of 2006)

Tolya etc.                                   ………Appellants

                                   Versus

State of M.P. & Another etc.            ……..Respondents


                               J U D G M E N T

M.Y. EQBAL, J.


1.    This appeal is directed against the order  dated  5.8.2004  passed  by
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore, in Second Appeal  No.165-
166 of 1999, whereby the Second Appeal was allowed, the judgment  and  order
passed by the Courts below have been set aside.

2.    The facts of the case, which are common, lie in a narrow compass.
3.    The land in dispute is  an  agricultural  land,  originally  owned  by
Jagannath Singh. In a land ceiling proceedings initiated  against  Jagannath
Singh, under M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Land Holdings Act, 1960,  land  in
question was declared as surplus  land.   Consequently,  it  vested  in  the
State Government, who in turn allotted the land to the  defendant-appellants
some times in the year 1973, under the Bhumiswami  Right,  purported  to  be
under Section 35 of the said Act.

4.    The appellants sold the said land allotted to them by sale deed  dated
4.7.1975 in favour of respondent No.2.  It appears  that  sometimes  in  the
year 1979 on a complaint, the Collector Shajapur, proceeded  to  revise  the
allotment and action was contemplated to re-allot the land according to  the
Rules.  The  respondent  filed  a  revision  against  the  decision  of  the
Collector before the Board of  Revenue,  where  the  allotment  of  land  in
favour of the appellants and subsequent  transfer  to  respondent  No.2  was
upheld.
5.    It further appears from the record that proceedings under Section  250
of the Land  Revenue  Code,  1959  was  initiated  for  restoration  of  the
property in favour of the appellants, who was illegally dispossessed  and  a
notice to that effect was issued to the  respondent  for  directing  him  to
hand over the land to the appellants, failing which the allotment  shall  be
cancelled.  The respondent then moved the Civil Court by  filing  suits  for
declaration  of  ownership  in  respect  of  the  said  property  which  was
dismissed by judgment dated 19.11.1998.

6.    Appeal filed by the respondent against the  said  judgment  was  stood
dismissed on 17.3.1999.   The respondent then  filed  Second  Appeal  before
the High Court which was eventually allowed in terms of judgment  and  order
dated 5.8.2004 and the Judgment and Orders passed by  the  trial  court  and
the appellate court were set aside.

7.    The High Court while reversing the judgment  of  the  trial  court  as
also the appellate court has taken the view that the land  was  allotted  to
the appellants  under  Section  35  of  the  M.P.  Ceiling  on  Agricultural
Holdings Act, 1960 (for short  “Ceiling  Act  of  1960”)  and  there  is  no
provision under the Act  for  resumption  of  land  in  case  such  land  is
allotted to any person not entitled to such allotment.  The High Court  also
proceeded on the basis that neither the State nor any  Revenue  officer  has
taken any  proceeding  for  cancellation  of  allotment  in  favour  of  the
appellants.  On the contrary, the Board of Revenue has allowed the  revision
filed by the respondent and has upheld the allotment  and  directed  not  to
proceed for resumption of land since the  premium  has  already  been  paid.
The High Court further held that  the  Ceiling  Act  does  not  provide  for
cancellation of patta of surplus land under Section 35 or for resumption  of
land of the State in case the land had  been  allotted  to  any  person  not
entitled to such allotment.  On these legal provisions, the High Court  held
that the judgment passed by the trial court  and  the  appellate  court  are
contrary to law.

8.    We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

9.    We have perused the impugned order passed by the  High  Court.   Prima
facie we are of the view that the High Court has not  correctly  appreciated
the law in this regard.

10.   Before we consider the contention made by the  counsel  appearing  for
the parties, we would like to refer Sections 35 and 36 of the  M.P.  Ceiling
on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960.  The said section reads as under:-
“Section 35 - Allotment of surplus land  vesting  in  the  State  Government
under this Act-
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the  rules  framed  thereunder
surplus land vesting in the State under section  12  shall  be  allotted  in
Bhumiswami rights to  the  persons  mentioned  hereunder  in  the  order  of
priority as indicated therein on payment of  a  premium  equivalent  to  the
compensation payable in respect of such land --
(i) agricultural labourers,
(a) belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes; and
(b) others;
(ii)  joint  farming  society,  the  members  of  which   are   agricultural
labourers, or landless persons  whose  main  occupation  is  cultivation  or
manual labour on land, or a combination of such persons;
(iii)  better  farming  society,  the  members  of  which  are  agricultural
labourers, or landless persons  whose  main  occupation  is  cultivation  or
manual labour on land, or a combination of such persons;
(iv) freedom fighters;
(v) displaced tenants subject to  the  provisions  of  section  202  of  the
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (No. 20 of 1959);
(vi) holders holding contiguous land;
(vii) joint farming society of agriculturists;
(viii) better farming society of agriculturists;
(ix) any other co-operative farming society subject to  the  condition  that
land (including the land as owner or tenant individually by  members)  shall
not exceed the area equal  to  the  number  of  members  multiplied  by  the
ceiling area;
(x) an agriculturist holding land less than the ceiling area :

Provided that unless the State Government  otherwise  directs  surplus  land
consisting of compact area shall be either reserved for Government  farm  or
allotted to co-operative societies or any other public purpose.

Explanation I -- For the purpose of clause (iv), "freedom fighter"  means  a
person who by reason of  his  taking  part  in  any  national  movement  for
independence prior to the 15th August, 1947--
(i) had been awarded capital punishment; or
(ii) had to suffer imprisonment or detention  for  a  period  exceeding  six
months; or
(iii) had been permanently incapacitated on  account  of  injuries  infected
upon his person in firing or lathi charge; or
(iv) had to suffer loss of property, whether wholly or  partly  or  loss  of
employment or loss of his means of livelihood, and  includes  his  principal
heir where such person --
(a) was hanged in execution of the capital punishment; or
(b) died during the course of imprisonment or detention.

Explanation II -- For the purpose of Explanation I, "principal  heir"  means
the eldest son of the deceased or, if there is no son of  the  deceased  or,
if there is no son surviving, such  other  heir  of  the  deceased,  as  the
Collector may declare to be the principal heir.
(2) The premium payable under sub-section (1) may be paid  by  the  allottee
either in  a  lump  sum  within  six  months  of  the  commencement  of  the
agricultural year next following the date of allotment or  in  twenty  equal
instalments, the first instalment being payable on the commencement  of  the
agricultural year next following the date of allotment. If  the  premium  is
paid in instalments the unpaid balance of such premium shall carry  interest
at the rate of 3 per centum per annum with effect from  the  date  on  which
the first instalment falls due.
(3) Where the land allotted under Sub-section (1) is an orchard  other  than
banana gardens and vine yards,  the  allottee  shall  maintain  the  orchard
intact.

Section 36 – Recovery of premium in case of transfer of allotted land:-
Where land allotted under section 35 is transferred, the amount  of  premium
remaining unpaid in respect of such land shall be  a  first  charge  thereon
and shall be recoverable from the  transferee  in  the  same  manner  as  an
arrear of land revenue.”


11.   From a bare reading of  the  aforesaid  provision,  it  is  manifestly
clear that Section 35 makes  a  provision  for  allotment  of  surplus  land
declared under the Ceiling Act after vesting of  the  surplus  land  in  the
State.  According to this provision, the State shall allot the surplus  land
under “Bhumiswami right” to the persons mentioned thereunder  in  the  order
of priority.  First, the surplus land  shall  be  allotted  to  agricultural
labourers belonging to SC & ST and, thereafter, to other persons.

12.   “Bhumiswami Right” has not been defined  in  the  Ceiling  Act,  1960.
Section 158 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code 1959  defines  classes  of  tenure
and Bhumiswami.  Section 158 reads as under :-
158.  Bhumiswami – (1)  Every person who at the time of  coming  into  force
of this Code, belongs to any of the following  classes  shall  be  called  a
Bhumiswami and shall  have  all  the  rights  and  be  subject  to  all  the
liabilities conferred or imposed upon a Bhumiswami by or  under  this  Code,
namely –

……………..
……………..
……………..
……………..
……………..

(3)         Every person –

Who is holding land in Bhoomiswami right by virtue of  a  lease  granted  to
him by the State Government or the Collector or the Allotment Officer on  or
before the commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue code  (Amendment)
Act, 1992 from the date of such commencement, and;

To whom land is allotted in Bhumiswami right by the State Government or  the
Collector or the Allotment Officer after  the  commencement  of  the  Madhya
Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Amendment)  Act,  1992  from  the  date  of  such
allotment,

shall be deemed to be a Bhumiswami  in respect of such  land  and  shall  be
subject to all the rights and  liabilities  conferred  and  imposed  upon  a
Bhumiswami  or under this Code;

      Provided that no such person shall transfer such land within a  period
of ten years from the date of lease or allotment.

      Explanation- In this Section the expression      “Ruler”  and  ‘Indian
State” shall have the same meanings as are assigned to these expressions  in
clauses (22) and (15) respectively by article 366  of  the  Constitution  of
India.”


13.    Sub-section (3) of Section 158 clearly provides  that  land  allotted
by the State to any person giving ‘Bhumiswami right’ shall  have  all  right
to deal with the property.  However, proviso mandates that  such  Bhumiswami
shall not transfer land so allotted to him within  a  period  of  ten  years
from the date of lease or allotment.



14.   Section 250 of the Code is also worth to be quoted hereunder:-

“250. Reinstatement of Bhumiswami improperly dispossessed-

For the purpose of this Section and Section 250-A, Bhumiswami shall  include
occupancy tenant and Government lessee.

(1-a)  If a Bhumiswami  is dispossessed of the land otherwise  than  in  due
course of law or if any person unauthorisedly  continues  in  possession  of
any land of the Bhumiswami to the use  of  such  person  has  ceased  to  be
entitled under any provision of this Code, the Bhumiswami or  his  successor
in interest apply to the Tehsildar for restoration of the possession –

……………

……………



(2)………………



(3)………………



(4)……………….



(5)……………….



(6)……………….



(7)……………….



(8)………………



(9)………………..”





15.   In the light of the aforesaid provisions, we find that in the  instant
case the land, which was declared surplus land, was allotted  by  the  State
in purported exercise of power under Section  35  of  the  said  Act  giving
Bhumiswami right to the appellants.  The said  allotment  was  made  in  the
year 1973.  Within two years from the date of the said allotment,  the  land
was purchased  by  the  respondent  by  sale  deed  dated  4.7.1975,  which,
according to the appellants, was without consideration  and  the  respondent
in connivance with the other persons managed to keep the appellants  out  of
possession.  Prima facie, therefore, the sale  deed  alleged  to  have  been
executed by the appellants in favour of the respondent on 4.7.1975  is  null
and void and the same does not  confer  any  right,  title  or  interest  in
favour of the respondent-Sattar Khan.



16.   The trial court and the first appellate  court,  therefore,  correctly
recorded a finding that the sale deed, said to have  been  executed  by  the
appellants in favour of the respondent, is null  and  void  and  is  without
consideration.  The  High  Court  while  reversing  the  judgment  has   not
considered these  provisions  contained  in  the  M.P.  Revenue  Code.   We,
therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed  by
the High Court and restore the judgment of the trial  court.   Consequently,
the  suit  filed  by  the  respondent  is  dismissed.   Appeal  is   allowed
accordingly with no order as to costs.





                                                           …………………………………….J.
                                                              (Ranjan Gogoi)



                                                           …………………………………….J.
                                                                 (M.Y.Eqbal)

New Delhi
August 22, 2014

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.