1968 (1) TMI 50 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 17 of the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act.
2. Jurisdiction to determine whether tanks and wells are on 'occupied land'.
3. Entitlement to compensation for tanks and wells under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.
4. Authority of administrative bodies versus High Court's jurisdiction.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 17 of the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act:
The appellants argued that the High Court erred in holding that Section 17 of the Abolition Act was applicable to the case and that the Jagir Commissioner alone had the authority to inquire into the respondent's claim under Section 5(c). The Supreme Court agreed, stating that Section 17 only pertains to disputes about jagirdari title or rights in jagir lands already resumed under Section 3. It is meant for inquiries related to compensation payable to the jagirdar and does not extend to disputes about whether certain properties fall under Section 4(1)(a) read with Section 5. The High Court was incorrect in applying Section 17 to this case.

2. Jurisdiction to Determine Whether Tanks and Wells are on 'Occupied Land':
The High Court should have determined whether the tanks and wells claimed by the respondent were on 'occupied land' as defined under Section 5(c) of the Abolition Act. The Supreme Court emphasized that if the respondent's claim was substantiated, the appellants had no authority to take possession of the tanks and wells, as they would not vest in the State Government. The High Court should have assessed this jurisdictional fact and, if necessary, issued a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct the appellants to hand over possession to the respondent.

3. Entitlement to Compensation for Tanks and Wells under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959:
The respondent had applied for compensation under Section 251 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, claiming that the tanks were built by him and his predecessor. Initially, compensation was determined but later canceled by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Subsequent appeals were dismissed on the grounds that the tanks were not situated on 'occupied land'. The High Court quashed these orders, suggesting that the Jagir Commissioner should decide the matter. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the High Court itself should decide the jurisdictional fact about the nature of the land.

4. Authority of Administrative Bodies versus High Court's Jurisdiction:
The Supreme Court reiterated that where the jurisdiction of an administrative authority depends on a preliminary finding of fact, the High Court is entitled to independently determine whether that finding is correct. This principle ensures that inferior tribunals do not usurp jurisdiction they do not possess or refuse to exercise jurisdiction they have. The High Court should have exercised its jurisdiction to review the administrative decisions regarding the tanks and wells.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remanded the case for fresh consideration. The High Court was directed to decide the matter afresh, taking further evidence if necessary, to determine whether the tanks and wells were on 'occupied land' and whether the respondent was entitled to compensation. The parties were to bear their own costs up to that stage.