1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  7991   OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO.1854 OF 2016)

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

SABAL SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T  

ARUN MISHRA, J.

1. The question involved in the appeal is whether the land recorded

in the revenue papers before the date of vesting as 'Grass’ land can be

treated as khud­kasht land of Ex­Zamindar.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs/ respondents, as the

successor of the Ex­Zamindar. At the time of the abolition of

Zamindari, it was recorded as 'Grass’ land, in the name of their

predecessor.   They prayed for declaration of Bhumiswami rights and

permanent injunction, restraining  the defendants from interfering in

their possession of the land comprised in Survey Nos.77, 83, 191, 195

2

and 799 corresponding to new Survey Nos.37, 103 and 460 total area

83 Bighas 4 Biswas situated in village Enchada, Tehsil Nateran,

District Vidisha in the State of   Madhya Pradesh.   The defendant –

State of Madhya Pradesh treated plaintiffs/respondents as encroacher

of agricultural land, and they were threatened with dispossession on

1.5.1980 and 12.10.1980, whereas they have acquired the rights of

Bhumiswami  under  provisions  contained in  Madhya  Pradesh  Land

Revenue Code as they became Pacca tenant on the abolition of

Zamindari.  The  plaintiffs/ respondents  claimed  that the land was

Khud­kasht land of their predecessors;  Nirbhay Singh  and  Pratap

Singh who were Zamindars of Village Enchada.  

3. The State Government in the written statement denied the plaint

averments. However, it was admitted that Nirbhay Singh and Pratap

Singh, the predecessors   were the Zamindars of the village Enchada.

The land was not a Khud­kasht land.   It was recorded as 'Bir,' i.e.,

'Grass' land before coming into force of the M.B. Zamindari Abolition

Act.

4. The Trial Court dismissed the suit.   The First Appellate Court

affirmed the same; however, the High Court allowed the second appeal

and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs.  They have been declared to

be Bhumiswami of the land, and the permanent injunction has also

3

been granted.  Aggrieved thereby the appeal has been preferred by the

State of Madhya Pradesh. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the State

that land was not 'Khud­kasht’ land.  The High Court could not have

reversed the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and

the first appellate court in the second appeal.  The judgment is based

on the misreading of the Khasra entries and provisions of Section 2(c),

and Section 4(2) of the Zamindari Abolition Act have not been correctly

interpreted.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/

respondents submitted that growing of Grass was also an agricultural

purpose.   In Khasra for Survey No.77 for Samvat year 2007,

cultivation of crop of “Jwar” was mentioned, though in Col.5 thereof.

Thus, the said survey No.77 did not vest in the State.  The remaining

land was Grassland under personal cultivation of Zamindars as such

it did not vest in the State.  Nirbhay Singh and Pratap Singh became

pakka tenant of the disputed land and ultimately acquired the rights

of Bhumiswami.

7. The main question for consideration is whether the plaintiff

acquired the rights of Pakka tenant under the Zamindari Abolition Act

and that of Bhumiswami under the provisions of section 158 of

4

Madhya Pradesh 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 in the

erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat.   The Zamindari Abolition Act, had

been reserved under Article 31(4) of the Constitution of India for the

consideration of the Hon’ble President and received his assent in 1951

and was enforced with effect from 2.10.1951, resulting into the

abolition  of intermediaries.   The same  was enacted for the  public

purpose of the improvement of agriculture, and financial condition of

agriculturist by abolition and acquisition of rights of proprietors in the

village,  muhals,  chak or blocks settled on Zamindari  system which

used to be a system of keeping an intermediary between the State and

the tenants.

9. Section 3 of the Zamindari Abolition Act provided for vesting of

proprietary rights in the State, and the rights of the proprietor shall

pass from such proprietor to such other person, to and vests in the

State free of all encumbrances. Section 4 provided for the consequence

of the vesting of an estate in the State.  As per section 4(1)(a) all rights,

title 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, and bazaars and mela­grounds and in all sub­soil,

5

including rights, if any, in mines and minerals, whether being worked

or not shall cease and be vested in the State free from all

encumbrances automatically. Section 4(2) contains saving in favour of

the proprietor to the extent that he shall continue to remain in

possession of his Khud­kasht land so recorded in the annual village

papers on the date of vesting. Section 2(c) defines the 'Khud­kasht” to

mean land personally cultivated by Zamindars or through employees

or hired labourers and includes sir land.

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

“2. Definitions:­ (c) "Khud­kasht" means land cultivated by the Zamindar himself or 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 notification under Section 3 in respect of any area has been published in the Gazette, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any contract, grant or document or in any other law for the time being in force, the consequences as hereinafter set forth shall from the beginning of the date specified in such notification (hereinafter referred to as 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,  fisheries,  wells (other than  private  wells), tanks, ponds, water channels, ferries, pathways village­sites, hats, and bazars and mela­grounds and in all sub­soil, including rights, if any, in mines and minerals, whether being  worked  or  not  shall cease  and be  vested in the State free from all encumbrances; ….

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub­section (1), the proprietor shall continue to remain in possession of his Khud­ kasht land, so recorded in the annual village papers before the date of vesting.

(3) Nothing contained in sub­section (1) shall operate as a bar to the recovery by the outgoing proprietor of any sum which

6

becomes due to him before the date of vesting in virtue of his proprietary rights."

(emphasis supplied)

It is  apparent  from the provisions contained in section 4(1) it

contained non­obstante clause and that all rights and interest of the

proprietor in the area  of Zamindari including the land (cultivable,

barren or bir), etc. shall vest in the State automatically. What is saved

with  the  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 dual that

the land should not only be Khud­kasht, but it should be so recorded

in the annual village papers before the date of vesting.  As the date of

vesting was 2.10.1951, the agricultural year in the erstwhile Madhya

Bharat commenced from 1st  July to 30th  June of the succeeding

Gregorian calendar year, the only relevant entry was before the date of

vesting, i.e., of Samvat 2007.  The land is required to be so recorded

as 'Khud­kasht’ in the revenue papers before the date of vesting. As

2.10.1951 fell in the Samvat year 2008, thus the entry in record of

rights of Samvat 2007 assumes significance as that has been made

the basis for conferring of the rights on abolition of Zamindari.

12. The land  to  be  saved  from vesting  was required to  be  under

personal cultivation i.e., Khud­kasht, but besides it must have been so

7

recorded  as “Khud­kasht” in the revenue  paper  before the  date  of

vesting, i.e., 2007.  Thus, there  are three requirements  namely (i)

personal cultivation as defined in Section 2 (c); (ii) entry in the record

of right; and (iii) before the date of vesting, i.e., 2007.  In case the land

was so recorded as Khud­kasht, but was not personally cultivated by

the Zamindar as specified in section 2(c), such land shall vest in State.

13. With reference to Khud­kasht  land so recorded as per section

4(2) which was under personal cultivation as defined in section 2(c) of

the Abolition Act, such a Zamindar acquired rights of pakka tenancy,

in the  land held by him, under the provisions of  section 37 of  the

Abolition Act. In case of tenant and sub­tenant, Conferral of pakka

tenancy 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 land so recorded as Khud­Kasht.  The same is extracted hereunder:

“37. Conferral of pacca tenancy rights on proprietor. ­  (1) Every proprietor who is divested of his proprietary rights in an estate, chak, block or Muhal shall, with effect from this date of vesting, be a pacca tenant of the khud­kasht land in his possession and the land revenue payable by him shall  be determined at the rate 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 II of

the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act,  (Samvat 2007)

8

(Act No.66 of 1950).   Besides that, the Zamindari Abolition Act

conferred right of pakka tenant on a proprietor concerning the

khudkasht land and so recorded in revenue papers before the date of

vesting.  Section 54(vii) of Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy

Act is extracted hereunder:

“54.(vii)   Pakka  tenant  – means a tenant who has been or whose predecessor in interest had been lawfully recorded in respect of his holding as a “Ryot Pattedar”, “Mamuli Maurusi”, “Gair Maurusi”, and “Pukhta Maurusi” when this Act comes into force or who may in future be duly recognized as such by a competent authority.”

15. The pakka tenancy rights are conferred on a proprietor

concerning Khud­kasht land in his possession.

16. M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 was enacted on the formation of

Madhya Pradesh and came into force w.e.f. 2.10.1959 to unify 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, 1959

conferred Bhumiswami rights on a tenant or Muafidar, etc.  Provisions

of section 158 (1)(b) provided that 'pakka tenant’ shall be called

Bhumiswami  in M.P.  Land Revenue Code,  1959, in  case he was a

pakka tenant or a Maufidar, Inamdar or Concessional holder as

defined in Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat

9

2007 (66 of 1950).   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 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 :­

(a) every person in respect of land held by him in the Mahakoshal region in Bhumisami or Bhumidhari rights in accordance with the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954 (II of 1955);

(b) every person in respect of land held by him in the Madhya Bharat region as Pakka tenant or as a Muafidar, Inamdar or Concessional holder, as defined in the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 (66 of 1950)

(c) every person in respect of land held by him in the Bhopal region as an occupant as defined in the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932 (IV of 1932);

(d) (i)  every person  in respect of  land held by him in the Vindhya  Pradesh region  as  a  pachapan  paintalis tenant, pattedar tenant, a grove holder or as a holder of tank as defined in the Vindhya Pradesh Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1953 (III of 1955)

(ii) every person in respect of land (other than land which is a  grove or  tank or which has been acquired or  which  is required for Government or public purposes) held by him in the Vindhya Pradesh region as a gair haqdar tenant and in respect of which he is entitled to a patta in accordance with the provisions of sub­section (4) of section 57 of the Rewa State Land Revenue and Tenancy Code, 1935.

(iii) every person in respect of land held by him as a tenant in the Vindhya Pradesh region and in respect of which he is entitled to a patta in accordance with the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of section 151 of the Vindhya Pradesh Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1953 (III) of 1955), but has omitted to obtain such patta before the coming into force of this Code,

(e)  every person  in respect  of  land held by him in Sironj region as a Khatedar tenant or as a grove holder as defined in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (3 of 1955)

[(2) A Ruler of an Indian State forming part of the State of Madhya Pradesh who, at  the time of coming into  force of  this

10

Code, was holding land or was entitled to hold land as such Ruler by virtue of the covenant or agreement entered into by him before the commencement of the Constitution, shall, as from the date of coming into force of this Code, be a Bhumiswami of such land under the Code and shall be subject to all the rights and liabilities conferred and imposed upon a Bhumiswami by or under this Code.”

17. For conferral of Bhumiswami rights on sub­tenants, the process

of conferral of rights of occupancy tenant is provided under section

185 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and the conferral of

Bhumiswami rights on such occupancy tenants is provided  under

section 190 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959.

18. Under section 185 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 every

person who at the coming into force of the Code holds any 'Inam land’

as a tenant or as a subtenant or as an ordinary tenant or any land as

ryotwari sub­lessee as defined in the Madhya Bharat Ryotwari Sub­

Lessees Protection Act,  1955, any Jagir land as defined in Madhya

Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act, 1951 as a subtenant or as a tenant of a

subtenant,  or  any  land of  proprietor  as  defined  in  Madhya Bharat

Zamindari  Abolition Act,  1951 as a sub­tenant or as a tenant of  a

subtenant shall be called as “Occupancy Tenants”.  Under section 189

of MPLRC, 1959 right was given to a Bhumiswami, whose land is held

by an occupancy tenant, to resume the land within one year of the

coming  into force  of this  Code, if  he  was holding the area of land

under his cultivation below twenty­five acres of unirrigated land.  The

11

right was given to him to apply for the resumption of the land held by

his occupancy tenant for his cultivation and his failure to do so within

the specified period, Section 190 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959

conferred the rights  on the  occupancy tenant  of the  Bhumiswami.

Rights of Bhumiswami accrued to the occupancy tenant regarding the

land held by him on the expiry of the period fixed for resumption of

the land as specified in section 190(1).

19. In the present case the rights have been claimed under section

158 of  the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 on the ground that the

predecessors of the plaintiff were pakka tenants and acquired

Bhumiswami 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 proprietor

with respect to the land under his possession as Khud­kasht land as

per section 2(c) read with section 4(2).

20. When we consider the entry of  2007 placed on record by the

learned counsel on behalf of the plaintiff, it is apparent that Survey

No.77,  191,  195 and 199 are recorded  as “Bir land."  Concerning

survey No.83 also finding recorded by the trial court and a first

appellate court is that the same was recorded as “Bir land,"  i.e.,

“grassland."   Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs/

respondents  has  submitted that  at least concerning  Survey  No.77,

12

entry of cultivation of 'Jwar’ was recorded in Column No.5.Whereas in

Column No.21 and 22 there was 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 the

plaintiffs. The land not being so recorded as Khud­kasht in the

revenue papers before the date of vesting, the mandatory requirement

of section 4(2) of the Abolition Act, is not fulfilled.   Such land is not

saved from vesting under section 4(1) of the Abolition Act, 2003 as a

cultivable, barren or Bir  land vested in the State automatically free

from all encumbrances.  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  be

personal cultivation of the land by the Zamindar was not fulfilled.  The

land  was required to  be  personally cultivated  either  by  Zamindars

himself or through employees or hired labourers.   There was no

personal cultivation recorded in revenue papers of erstwhile

Zamindars and land was also not so recorded as Khud­kasht land.

23. It is submitted that growing of Grass is an agricultural purpose

under section 55 of Madhya Bharat Land Revenue Tenancy Act, as

there was an entry of 'grass,' i.e., 'Bir' in the revenue paper of Samvat

13

Year 2007 before the date of vesting, such grassland did not vest in

the State. Section 55 is extracted hereunder:

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

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

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

iii)  the growth of trees; or

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

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

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

24. No doubt about it that a tenant was required to use his holding

for agricultural purposes.  The growth of Grass or food for cattle inter

alia was one of the agricultural purposes. In our opinion, there is no

requirement for a tenant personally to cultivate the land as on the

date of abolition as such provision lends no help to a proprietor.  The

rights of the proprietor are quite different. The rights of the proprietor

are limited to land cultivated personally and so recorded as required

under the provisions of the Abolition Act, instrumental for bringing the

agrarian reforms and conferred the rights on the actual tiller of the

land by removing the intermediaries.

14

25. Bir land  is  vested in  State  under  Section 4(1).  The  grass is

naturally grown without effort, and it cannot be said to be produced

by way of rendering one's labour or through employees or hired

labour. The land should have been under Khud­kasht i.e., personal

cultivation and so recorded of the ex­proprietor to be saved from

vesting as statutorily mandated. There is a specific provision in

Section 4(1) of the Abolition Act that the grassland, i.e., 'Bir land,' held

by the proprietor automatically vested in the State free from all

encumbrances.   In  which case  land  lying fallow also vested  in  the

State.

26. Now we come to entry of Samvat year of 2007.   There is

presumption of correctness of Khasra entries under section  52 of

Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Tenancy Act unless the contrary  is

proved.  Section 52 is extracted hereunder:

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

27. The  Khasra in the relevant year in  Samvat year  2007  as to

Survey  No.77 contains the  entry  of  crop  of 'Jwar’ in  Column No.5

which is meant for recording the name of tenants, his father's name,

caste,  and residence and the nature of  his rights.  The Columns to

record the cultivation of crop of Kharib and Rabi are Column Nos.10

15

to 15.  All these columns are empty in the Khasra concerning all the

disputed survey numbers, and when we come to the column

containing  an  entry for the land lying  uncultivated, there  was the

entry of 'bir’ land, which has been scored out.  Thus, the entry makes

it clear that it was not so recorded as Khud­kasht land and there was

no personal cultivation as such the land automatically vested in the

State under Section 4(1) of Abolition Act.

28. The tenancy can be proved by Khasras entries alone.   The

revenue entries carry a statutory presumption of  correctness under

the provisions of Section 52 and unless rebutted, the statutory

presumption of  correctness attached  to the entries is  an  inevitable

one. Unless such the presumption is rebutted, entries cannot be

discarded.  The  entry  produced  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 and in the Khasra column 21 and 22 which

originally recorded 'Bir,' i.e., Grassland.   Both entries are

irreconcilable with each other.  The  entries have been made of 'Jwar’

cultivation in  a column not meant for recording cultivation, the entry

is ex­facie spurious manipulated one, impermissible and inconceivable

and is against instructions contained in  Kawayad patwariyan, as

such no presumption of it  being correct  can be drawn under  the

provision  of  Section  52 of  Madhya  Bharat  Land  Revenue  Tenancy

16

ActThe entry which is on the face of it has been illegally made and is

contradicted by the original entries in Column Nos.21 and 22 in the

same  Khasra.  Even  otherwise land is  not recorded  as  Khud­kasht

land.

29. About entries in revenue record Trial Court and First Appellate

Court, have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the land was

not under personal cultivation.  It was not open to the High Court to

interfere  with  the  findings of fact,  which was based on  the  proper

appreciation of evidence on record.   Even the plaintiff was unable to

state whether there was any crop  in the relevant year 2007 before

Zamindari abolition.   Such finding of fact based on proper

appreciation of evidence could not have been interfered with by the

High Court within the ken of Section 100, CPC.  

30. The decision of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Bheron Singh

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 the column

of ‘Alavajot’ i.e., not under plough. The plaintiff in the said case was

erstwhile Zamindar of the suit land, and it was recorded as

'Khudkasht land.'  We are unable to accept the proposition mentioned

above as the provision of section 4(1) of the Abolition Act, 2003 had

not been considered in Bheron Singh (supra). Where 'Bir’ land vests in

17

the State and only the land under personal cultivation as defined in

section 2(c) and so recorded as Khud­Kasht as per section 4(2), was

saved from vesting.   ‘Grass’ was recorded in Alavajot column  i.e., in

area not under plough.  The decision in Bhairon Singh (supra) cannot

be said to be laying down good law, as such it is overruled.  

31. Resultantly, the judgment and decree passed by the High Court

deserves to be and are set aside.  The judgment and decree passed by

the Trial Court are restored. The appeal is accordingly allowed.   No

costs.

…………………………. J.    (ARUN MISHRA)

…………………………. J.    (M.R. SHAH)

OCTOBER 14, 2019; NEW DELHI.