Supreme Court Clarifies Vesting of Charnoi Land under Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act: Chattar Singh & Ors. vs. Madho Singh (D) & Ors. (06 February 2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 06 February 2019
Citation: [Not provided in the source]
Judges: Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Navin Sinha
Can common grazing land (‘Charnoi’ land) be considered a ‘grove’ and thus be saved from vesting with the State under the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a dispute over land ownership following the abolition of the Zamindari system. The core issue was whether land recorded as ‘Charnoi,’ used for village cattle grazing, should vest with the State or remain with the ex-proprietor as a ‘grove’ under Section 5(f) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951. The two-judge bench of Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Navin Sinha delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit seeking a declaration and permanent injunction regarding the suit land. They contended that the land was recorded as ‘Charnoi’ and used for grazing village cattle. The ex-zamindar, Kalu Singh, father of defendant Nos. 2 and 3, applied to the Tehsildar to grant him the land, which was rejected. Appeals to the Sub-Divisional Officer and Additional Commissioner were also dismissed. However, the Board of Revenue reversed these orders on 2nd December 1959, stating Kalu Singh was entitled to the land as Bhumiswami under Section 5(f) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act. Based on this, the Collector granted the land to Kalu Singh on 14th March 1968. After Kalu Singh’s death, his sons, defendant Nos. 2 and 3, had their names recorded as Bhumiswami on 13th May 1968. The plaintiffs then filed a suit challenging these orders.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, relying on the ‘Charnoi’ land records and the defendant’s admission that villagers grazed their cattle on the land until 1967. The Appellate Court reversed this, holding that the land was a grove and thus saved from vesting under Section 5(f) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act. The High Court reversed the Appellate Court’s findings, relying on the khasra entries that recorded the land as ‘Charnoi’ and concluding that it vested in the State, not being the ex-proprietor’s khud-kasht land.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951. Key provisions include:

• Section 4: This section deals with the consequences of vesting of an estate in the State. It states that all rights, title, and interest of the proprietor in the area, including land, forests, trees, and village sites, shall vest in the State. Section 4(2) provides an exception for Khud-kasht land which is recorded as such in the annual village papers before the date of vesting.

  “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 date 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 village-sites, hats, and bazars and mela-grounds and in all sub-soil, 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 sub-section (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.”

• Section 5: This section concerns private wells, trees, buildings, house sites, and enclosures. Section 5(f) specifically deals with groves, stating that groves recorded in the village papers in the name of the outgoing proprietor shall continue to belong to the proprietor and the land under the grove shall be settled with the proprietor.

  “5. Private wells, trees, buildings, house sites, and enclosures.– (f) All groves wherever situate and recorded in village papers in the name of the outgoing proprietor or any other person shall continue to belong to or be held by such proprietor or such other person and the land under such grove shall be settled with such proprietor or such other person by the Government on such terms and conditions as it may determine.”

• Section 2(c): This section defines “Khud-kasht” as land cultivated by the Zamindar himself or through employees or hired laborers, including sir land.

  “2(c) “Khud-kasht” means land cultivated by the Zamindar himself or through employees or hired labourers and includes sir land;”

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the land should be treated as a ‘grove’ under Section 5(f) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, relying on the presence of more than one lakh trees of sitafal (pumpkin).
• They cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Shrimant Sardar Chandrojirao Angre v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1968) 1 SCR 761], contending that such groves are saved from vesting.
• The appellants emphasized that the High Court did not reverse the finding of the existence of a large number of trees.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents supported the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court.
• They argued that the land was recorded as ‘Charnoi’ (common grazing land) and, therefore, vested in the State under Section 4 of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act.
• They contended that the land was not khud-kasht land of the ex-proprietor.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants innovatively tried to bring the land under the definition of ‘grove’ by emphasizing the presence of a large number of trees, thereby attempting to save it from vesting. The respondents relied on the plain reading of the entries in the revenue records.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the land recorded as ‘Charnoi’ i.e. Common land for grazing of cattle of villagers vests in State on abolition of intermediaries on 02.10.1951 or it was saved from vesting in favour of proprietor being grove under section 5(f) of the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Zamindari Act.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

• Shrimant Sardar Chandrojirao Angre v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1968) 1 SCR 761], Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by the appellants to argue that groves are saved from vesting. The Supreme Court in the present case distinguished it, stating that it did not relate to ‘Charnoi’ land. The Court in the cited case had observed that a grove should have substantial compactness and the trees should preclude the land from being used for any other purpose other than a grove.
• Section 4 of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951: This section deals with the consequences of vesting of an estate in the State. The court relied on this to conclude that all land including village common land vests in the State.
• Section 5(f) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951: This section deals with groves. The court held that this provision doesn’t apply to common grazing land.
• Section 2(c) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951: This section defines “Khud-kasht”. The court relied on this to conclude that the land was not khud-kasht.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court distinguished Shrimant Sardar Chandrojirao Angre v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1968) 1 SCR 761], stating that it did not apply to ‘Charnoi’ land. The court observed that in the cited case, the trees were such that they precluded the land from being used for any other purpose other than a grove.
• The Court applied Section 4 of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, emphasizing that all common lands, including ‘Charnoi’ land, vest in the State.
• The Court interpreted Section 5(f) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, concluding that it does not save common grazing land from vesting.
• The Court applied Section 2(c) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, concluding that the land was not khud-kasht and therefore not saved from vesting.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The land was recorded as ‘Charnoi’ (common grazing land) in the revenue records.
• The definition of ‘grove’ does not include common grazing land.
• Section 4 of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act clearly states that all common lands vest in the State.
• Section 5(f) of the Act does not save common grazing land from vesting.
• The land was not khud-kasht land of the ex-proprietor.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual evidence (the land records) and legal interpretation (the provisions of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act). The Court emphasized the importance of the revenue records in determining the nature of the land.

Logical Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the primary purpose of the land was for common grazing, and not as a grove. The Court also emphasized that the land was not khud-kasht of the proprietor, thereby not saving it from vesting.

Key Takeaways

• ‘Charnoi’ land (common grazing land) vests in the State upon the abolition of intermediaries under the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act.
• The term ‘grove’ under Section 5(f) of the Act does not include common grazing land.
• Revenue records are crucial in determining the nature and ownership of land.
• Ex-proprietors cannot claim rights over common land that was used for public purposes before the abolition of Zamindari.

Potential Future Impact: This judgment clarifies the legal position regarding the vesting of common lands, particularly ‘Charnoi’ land, under the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act. It reinforces the principle that common lands reserved for public purposes vest in the State and cannot be claimed by ex-proprietors. This decision will likely impact similar cases involving the interpretation of land laws and the vesting of common lands in other states as well.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

No specific amendments were analyzed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that land recorded as ‘Charnoi,’ which is common grazing land, vests in the State upon the abolition of intermediaries and cannot be claimed by ex-proprietors as a ‘grove’ under Section 5(f) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act. This judgment reinforces that the term ‘grove’ does not include common grazing land and clarifies the interpretation of Section 5(f).

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the ‘Charnoi’ land in question vested in the State upon the abolition of intermediaries. The Court clarified that common grazing land does not fall under the definition of ‘grove’ and is not saved from vesting under Section 5(f) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act. The judgment emphasizes the importance of revenue records and the vesting of common lands in the State.