1    

NON-REPORTABLE    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  5040 OF 2009  

YASHCHANDRA (D) BY LRS.   …APPELLANT(S)  

Versus  

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH   & ORS.             …RESPONDENT(S)        

J U D G M E N T    

Deepak Gupta, J.  

1. The State of Madhya Pradesh enacted the Madhya  

Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter  

referred to as ‘the Act’).  The Bill in this regard was published  

on 15th September, 1959 and the Act was published on 1st  

October, 1960 after receiving the assent of the President of  

India.  Section 7 of the Act provided the maximum extent of  

land to be held by a person and when the Act was initially  

passed, a land holder was not entitled to hold land in excess of  

28 standard acres.  Standard acre was defined under Section

2    

2(n) of the Act to mean one acre of perennially irrigated land or  

two acres of seasonally irrigated land or three acres of dry  

land.  Section 4 of the Act provided that any transaction of  

land by the land holder by way of sale, gift, exchange, partition  

etc. could be verified by the competent authority, provided  

such transfer of land had been made after the date of  

publication of the Bill i.e. 15.09.1959.  Sub-section 2 of  

Section 4 of the Act provided that this section would not apply  

to a transfer made by the land holder who does not hold land  

in excess of the ceiling area on the date of transfer.  Section 5  

of the Act restricts the transfer or sub-division of land after the  

coming into force of the Act till final order under Section 11 of  

the Act is passed unless the permission of the Collector in  

writing is taken before entering into the transaction.    

2. One Phoolchand was the owner of 72 acres 75 decimals  

of land.  Admittedly, this was dry land and, therefore, he was  

entitled to hold 84 acres of dry land under the Act.  The Act  

was amended in the year 1972. We are only concerned with the  

Amendment Act of 1972 and the Second Amendment Act of  

1972.  Both these Acts came into force from 7th March, 1974.   

The maximum extent of holding was changed and where the

3    

holder of the land was a member of the family of less than 5  

members, the family was entitled to retain 15 standard acres of  

land, and 18 standard acres of land where a family consisted of  

more than 5 persons. As per this amendment, Phoolchand was  

at the most entitled to retain 18 standard acres or 54 acres of  

dry land.  Vide Second Amendment Act, 1972, Section 4 of the  

Act was amended and the competent authority was entitled to  

set aside any transaction entered into after 24th January, 1971  

and before the appointed day, which is 7th March, 1974.    

3. After the Act was amended, Phoolchand filed his return  

and in his return he did not say that he had leased out any  

land to Yashchandra, the original plaintiff who was also the  

original appellant before this Court, who is deceased and is  

now represented by his legal representatives.  It is the admitted  

case of the parties that Yashchandra was related to  

Phoolchand. Yashchandra filed a petition before the competent  

authority under the Act claiming that he was an occupancy  

tenant on the eastern part of the land of Phoolchand measuring  

25 acres and claimed that this land had been leased out to him  

vide lease deed dated 21st November, 1968 on a rental of           

Rs. 500/- per annum.   He further claimed that since he was in

4    

occupation of the land he had got the rights of occupancy  

tenant under Section 169 of the Madhya Pradesh Land  

Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’).  The  

competent authority rejected the objections and declared 20.88  

acres of land of Phoolchand as surplus under the Act.    

4. Thereafter, Yashchandra filed a suit for declaration of his  

occupancy rights in the suit land on the same grounds.   In  

this suit he claimed that Phoolchand had transferred 24 acres  

of land to him in 1968.  In this suit a written statement was  

filed and in the written statement the State denied that  

Phoolchand had created any lease in favour of Yashchandra.   

However, it was admitted that the plaintiff was in cultivating  

possession of the land.  The State, however, took the plea that  

the alleged transaction of lease is a sham transaction set up  

with an intention to defeat the provisions of the Act.   

Phoolchand was defendant in the suit but did not contest the  

same.  He did not file any written statement.  The trial court  

dismissed the suit.  Yashchandra filed an appeal and the first  

appellate court allowed the appeal mainly on the ground that a  

lease was created by the document in question and, as such,  

the plaintiff had obtained occupancy rights.  An appeal was

5    

filed by the State and the High Court came to the conclusion  

that the alleged deed was a sham transaction.  It relied upon  

the evidence of the plaintiff himself to come to the conclusion  

that the plaintiff was not in possession of the land. This  

judgment is challenged before us.    

5. Shri Puneet Jain, learned counsel for the appellants has  

basically raised two issues- the first is that since the  

transaction in question is of the year 1968, the competent  

authority had no jurisdiction to invalidate the same either  

under the un-amended provisions of the Act or under the  

amended provisions of the Act.  He submits that when the  

transaction took place, the holding of Phoolchand was less  

than the maximum prescribed limit and such a transfer was  

permissible under section 4(2) of the Act.  He further submits  

that after the Amendment Act of 1972, the competent authority  

could only look into the validity of those documents or  

transactions which had been entered into after 24th         

January, 1971.  

6. This argument seems attractive on first blush.  However,  

when we carefully peruse the original document, we notice that  

by this document [Annexure P-2] Phoolchand states that he

6    

has received Rs.2000/- from Yashchandra and that he has  

permitted Yashchandra to enclose and cultivate 1/3rd of his  

land measuring 24 acres and cultivate the same and only        

Rs. 500/- would be deducted.  Even after payment of the full  

amount of Rs. 2000/-, Yashchandra would be entitled to  

cultivate the land for a period of 10 years.  This document is  

signed only by Phoolchand and it is neither witnessed by  

anybody nor registered.  This document transfers an interest in  

immovable property of more than rupees hundred.  It may be  

true that under the provisions of the Code oral leases of  

agricultural holdings are permissible, but once the lease is  

created by a document then the same has to be registered  

under the Registration Act.  This document is an unregistered  

document.  The courts below have come to the conclusion that  

this document is an ante-dated document.  Therefore, this  

document cannot be looked into for deciding whether this  

document creates any right, title or interest in the appellants.   

In our view, in the absence of any registration or any attesting  

witness, the document could have easily been manipulated by  

Phoolchand and the plaintiff by ante-dating it.

7    

7. The second issue raised by Shri Puneet Jain, learned  

counsel for the appellants is that the aforesaid document can  

be looked into for the collateral purpose for deciding the  

possession of the plaintiff.  In this regard, Shri Jain, learned  

counsel also relied upon the written statement wherein it is  

mentioned that the cultivating possession of the plaintiff is  

admitted.  No doubt, this one sentence in the written statement  

gives the impression that possession of the plaintiff is admitted,  

but if we read the written statement as a whole we find that the  

stand of the State is that the document is a sham document, at  

best a mortgage deed and the possession of the plaintiff is in  

the nature of a mortgagee.  

8. One of the issues framed was whether the plaintiff had  

become a cultivating farmer of the land in question and while  

answering this issue the trial court has discussed the question  

whether the plaintiff was in possession of the land or not.  It  

has been found that the plaintiff was not in possession of the  

land.  In fact, the plaintiff himself had admitted that he is not  

in possession of the land and cultivation on his behalf is  

carried out by a servant.  It was also stated that one relative  

was managing the cultivation of the land.  The trial court held

8    

that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he was in possession  

because he failed to mention the name of the persons who were  

owning the neighbouring lands nor could he give any details  

thereof.  The servant Buda and the relative Amlok Chand were  

not examined by the plaintiff.  Therefore, even as per the stand  

of the plaintiff he was not in personal cultivating possession  

and hence, he could not have got occupancy rights of a tenant  

in the land which can only be given to a person who is actually  

cultivating the land.    

9. In view of the above discussion we find no error in the  

judgment of the High Court and the appeal is dismissed  

accordingly.  Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.  

….……………………..J.  (MADAN B. LOKUR)  

.….…………………….J.  (DEEPAK GUPTA)  

New Delhi  September 20, 2017