Page 1

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.

1

Page 2

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.   

2

Page 3

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.

3

Page 4

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  

4

Page 5

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  

5

Page 6

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  

6

Page 7

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  

7

Page 8

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  

8

Page 9

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  –

(a) …………….. (b) …………….. (c) …………….. (d) …………….. (e) ……………..

(3) Every person –

(i) 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  

9

Page 10

(Amendment) Act, 1992 from the date of  such commencement, and;  

(ii) 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  

10

Page 11

land so allotted to him within a period of ten years from the  

date of lease or allotment.

11

Page 12

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

“250.  Reinstatement  of  Bhumiswami  improperly dispossessed-  (1) 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 – (a) …………… (b) ……………

(2)………………

(3)………………

(4)……………….

(5)……………….

(6)……………….

(7)……………….

(8)………………

12

Page 13

(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.

13

Page 14

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

14