Supreme Court Clarifies Khudkasht Land Rights Under Zamindari Abolition Act: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Sabal Singh (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 14 October 2019

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 7991 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 1854 of 2016)

Judges: Arun Mishra, J., M.R. Shah, J.

Can land recorded as ‘grass’ land in revenue papers before the abolition of the Zamindari system be considered as ‘Khud-kasht’ land belonging to the former Zamindar? This is the core question the Supreme Court of India addressed. The case revolves around a dispute over land rights following the abolition of the Zamindari system in Madhya Pradesh. The court examined whether the land recorded as ‘grass’ land could be considered as land under the personal cultivation of the ex-Zamindars, thus entitling them to ownership rights. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra and M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The plaintiffs, successors of the ex-Zamindars Nirbhay Singh and Pratap Singh, claimed Bhumiswami rights over land in village Enchada, Tehsil Nateran, District Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh. The land, comprising Survey Nos. 77, 83, 191, 195, and 799 (new Survey Nos. 37, 103, and 460), was recorded as ‘Grass’ land in the revenue papers at the time of the abolition of Zamindari. The plaintiffs sought a declaration of their Bhumiswami rights and a permanent injunction against the State of Madhya Pradesh, which was treating them as encroachers.

The State of Madhya Pradesh denied the claims, asserting that the land was not ‘Khud-kasht’ land but was recorded as ‘Bir’ (grass) land before the enforcement of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act. The State threatened the plaintiffs with dispossession on 1.5.1980 and 12.10.1980. The plaintiffs contended that the land was under the personal cultivation of their predecessors and they became ‘pakka’ tenants upon the abolition of Zamindari, eventually acquiring Bhumiswami rights.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision. However, the High Court allowed the second appeal, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiffs and declaring them Bhumiswami of the land, granting a permanent injunction against the State. Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the State of Madhya Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case is primarily governed by the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act and the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.

✓ The Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act aimed to abolish the Zamindari system and vest proprietary rights in the State.

✓ Section 2(c) of the Zamindari Abolition Act defines “Khud-kasht” as “land cultivated by the Zamindar himself or through employees or hired laborers and includes sir land.”

✓ Section 4 of the Zamindari Abolition Act outlines the consequences of vesting an estate in the State. Section 4(1) states that all rights, title, and interest of the proprietor, including land (cultivable, barren, or Bir), shall vest in the State. Section 4(2) provides an exception, stating that the proprietor shall continue to possess his Khud-kasht land as recorded in the annual village papers before the date of vesting.

✓ Section 37(1) of the Zamindari Abolition Act confers ‘pakka tenancy’ rights on a proprietor for their khud-kasht land.

✓ Section 158 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, defines the classes of persons who shall be called Bhumiswami. Section 158(1)(b) states that a ‘pakka tenant’ in the Madhya Bharat region shall be called a Bhumiswami.

✓ Section 55 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue Tenancy Act defines the duties of a tenant, including using the land for agricultural purposes such as growing crops, grass, or food for cattle.

✓ Section 52 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue Tenancy Act states that all entries made in the Annual Village Papers shall be presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved.

The legal framework aimed to abolish intermediaries and confer rights on actual tillers of the land, while also protecting the rights of proprietors over their personally cultivated land.

Arguments

Arguments by the State of Madhya Pradesh:

• The State argued that the land was not ‘Khud-kasht’ land, and the High Court erred in reversing the concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
• The State contended that the High Court misinterpreted the Khasra entries and the provisions of Section 2(c) and Section 4(2) of the Zamindari Abolition Act.
• The State submitted that the land was recorded as ‘Bir’ (grass) land and not as land under personal cultivation of the ex-Zamindars, thus it vested in the State.

Arguments by the Plaintiffs/Respondents (Successors of Ex-Zamindars):

• The plaintiffs argued that growing grass was also an agricultural purpose.
• They contended that in the Khasra for Survey No. 77, cultivation of ‘Jwar’ was mentioned, indicating that this land did not vest in the State.
• The remaining land was grassland under the personal cultivation of the Zamindars, and thus did not vest in the State.
• They argued that Nirbhay Singh and Pratap Singh became ‘pakka’ tenants of the disputed land and ultimately acquired Bhumiswami rights.

The core of the dispute lies in the interpretation of ‘Khud-kasht’ land and whether the recording of land as ‘grass’ land precludes it from being considered as land under the personal cultivation of the ex-Zamindars.

The State relied on the literal interpretation of Section 4(1) of the Zamindari Abolition Act, stating that all land, including ‘Bir’ land, vested in the State, except for the land that was specifically recorded as ‘Khud-kasht’ and was under personal cultivation. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, argued that growing grass was an agricultural activity and that the land was under their personal cultivation, thereby entitling them to ownership rights.

Both sides relied on the revenue records, specifically the Khasra entries, to support their claims. The State emphasized that the land was recorded as ‘Bir’ land, while the plaintiffs pointed to entries of cultivation of ‘Jwar’ in Survey No. 77.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

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 Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Bheron Singh vs. Government of M.P., 1983 R.N. 243 – High Court of Madhya Pradesh: The High Court had held that ‘Bir’ land (grass land) recorded in the column of ‘Alavajot’ (not under plough) was considered as ‘Khudkasht’ land.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 2(c) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act: Defines ‘Khud-kasht’ land as land cultivated by the Zamindar himself or through employees or hired laborers, including sir land.
• Section 4 of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act: Deals with the consequences of vesting an estate in the State.
  • Section 4(1): States that all rights, title, and interest of the proprietor, including land (cultivable, barren, or Bir), shall vest in the State.
  • Section 4(2): Provides an exception, stating that the proprietor shall continue to possess his Khud-kasht land as recorded in the annual village papers before the date of vesting.
• Section 37(1) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act: Confers ‘pakka tenancy’ rights on a proprietor for their khud-kasht land.
• Section 158 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959: Defines the classes of persons who shall be called Bhumiswami.
  • Section 158(1)(b): States that a ‘pakka tenant’ in the Madhya Bharat region shall be called a Bhumiswami.
• Section 55 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue Tenancy Act: Defines the duties of a tenant, including using the land for agricultural purposes such as growing crops, grass, or food for cattle.
• Section 52 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue Tenancy Act: States that all entries made in the Annual Village Papers shall be presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved.

Authority Analysis Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ The Supreme Court overruled the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Bheron Singh vs. Government of M.P., 1983 R.N. 243, stating that it did not consider the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Abolition Act.

✓ The Court interpreted Section 2(c) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act to mean that ‘Khud-kasht’ land must be personally cultivated by the Zamindar or through employees or hired laborers.

✓ The Court interpreted Section 4 of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, specifically Section 4(1), to mean that all land, including ‘Bir’ land, vested in the State, and Section 4(2) as an exception only for Khud-kasht land.

✓ The Court used Section 37(1) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act to clarify that ‘pakka tenancy’ rights were conferred only on proprietors with respect to land under their possession as Khud-kasht land.

✓ The Court used Section 158 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, specifically Section 158(1)(b), to determine that only ‘pakka tenants’ could be called Bhumiswami, and since the plaintiffs were not ‘pakka tenants’ they could not acquire Bhumiswami rights.

✓ The Court acknowledged Section 55 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue Tenancy Act, stating that growing grass was an agricultural purpose for tenants, but this did not apply to the rights of a proprietor.

✓ The Court referred to Section 52 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue Tenancy Act to emphasize the presumption of correctness of Khasra entries, but found that the entries in this case were manipulated.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Statutory Interpretation: The Court emphasized the literal interpretation of the Zamindari Abolition Act, particularly Section 4(1) and Section 4(2), which clearly stated that all land, including ‘Bir’ land, vested in the State unless it was ‘Khud-kasht’ and so recorded in the revenue papers.
• Revenue Records: The Court placed significant reliance on the revenue records, specifically the Khasra entries. The absence of a clear record of ‘Khud-kasht’ and the recording of the land as ‘Bir’ land were crucial factors.
• Personal Cultivation: The Court stressed that ‘Khud-kasht’ land must be under personal cultivation by the Zamindar, which was not established in this case.
• Rejection of Manipulated Entries: The Court rejected the entry of ‘Jwar’ cultivation in Column 5 of the Khasra as spurious and manipulated, as it was not the correct column for recording cultivation.
• Concurrent Findings of Fact: The Court respected the concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, stating that the High Court should not have interfered with these findings.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on the statutory provisions and the factual matrix of the case, emphasizing the importance of accurate revenue records and the requirement of personal cultivation for claiming ‘Khud-kasht’ rights.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that growing grass is an agricultural purpose, but clarified that this was relevant for tenants and not for proprietors claiming ‘Khud-kasht’ rights. The Court rejected the manipulated entry of ‘Jwar’ cultivation, emphasizing the importance of accurate revenue records. The Court also upheld the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts, stating that the High Court should not have interfered with these findings.

The Court’s final decision was based on the statutory interpretation, the revenue records, and the absence of personal cultivation by the Zamindars. The Court emphasized that the land was not recorded as ‘Khud-kasht’ and therefore, did not fall under the exception provided in Section 4(2) of the Abolition Act.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“It is apparent from the provisions contained in section 4(1) it contained non-obstante 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.”

“The requirement of section 4(2) of the Abolition Act is dual that the land should not only be Khud-kasht, but it should be so recorded in the annual village papers before the date of vesting.”

“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 Khud-kasht i.e., personal cultivation and so recorded of the ex-proprietor to be saved from vesting as statutorily mandated.”

Key Takeaways

• Importance of Revenue Records: The judgment emphasizes the crucial role of revenue records in determining land rights, particularly in cases related to Zamindari abolition.
• Definition of ‘Khud-kasht’: The judgment clarifies that ‘Khud-kasht’ land must be under personal cultivation by the Zamindar and so recorded in the revenue papers.
• Vesting of ‘Bir’ Land: The judgment confirms that ‘Bir’ (grass) land vested in the State under Section 4(1) of the Zamindari Abolition Act unless it was specifically recorded as ‘Khud-kasht’.
• No Rights for ‘Bir’ Land: The judgment clarifies that merely growing grass is not sufficient to claim ‘Khud-kasht’ rights for a proprietor.
• Rejection of Manipulated Entries: The judgment highlights the importance of accurate revenue records and rejects manipulated entries.
• Concurrent Findings: The judgment respects the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts and states that the High Court should not interfere with these findings.
• ‘Pakka’ Tenancy Rights: The judgment clarifies that ‘pakka’ tenancy rights are conferred only on proprietors with respect to land under their possession as ‘Khud-kasht’ land.
• Bhumiswami Rights: The judgment emphasizes that only ‘pakka tenants’ can acquire Bhumiswami rights under Section 158 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.

Final Order

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and restored the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed.

The Court held that the High Court had erred in reversing the concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The Supreme Court upheld the State’s claim that the land vested in the State under Section 4(1) of the Zamindari Abolition Act, as it was not recorded as ‘Khud-kasht’ land and there was no evidence of personal cultivation by the Zamindars.