9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... came the owner of the said land. She expired on 8.5.1961. It is not in dispute that she did not have any issue and the plaintiff Narain Prasad Aggarwal and defendant No. 2 Guruprasad Agarwal inherited the said property as her heirs being sons of Hira Lal, the brother of late Fateh Chand. 3. It appears from the records that a proceeding was initiated by the said Putari Sethani in connection with proceeding for assessment of enhancement of lease rent by the then Collector of Hoshangabad. An order was passed against her. The matter was taken to the Court of Commissioner of Settlements in an appeal against the order of the Collector. The said authority by an order dated 30.10.1922 passed in C.P. No. 2454/1 held : Mt. Putari Sethani appeals against the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Nazual, Hoshangabad in respect of the following plots in that town. Nos. 207/18, 87/21. 70/21, 108/21. All assessed as riths by the Assistant Settlement Officer. This assessment had already been cancelled in general revision order dated the 14th October, 1921 recorded on the spot. 11/7 Assessed as a Sitaphal Bari, the fruits of this bari are sold, as admitted. It was muaf when hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time of settlement in 1921 and was therefore assessed. At any rate, the assessment then levied and not challenged that time cannot be questioned now. Under Sec. 100 of the M.P.L.R. Code 1959 (hereinafter termed Code) such an assessment is liable to be revised after the expiry of the terms of settlement and was, therefore, rightly revised by the learned Collector rejecting the claim of the appellants that the property is not liable to assessment. The method of the computation adopted by the learned Collector for fixing the revised assessment and premium has not been challenged at all and is generally in order. This in my opinion is payable by holder of the suit land irrespective of the fact the holder accepts or refuses to accept the same. If holder does not want to hold the suit land at this revised assessment and premium, it is clear that the learned Collector has no choice but to declare it as open Nazul land. The order of the learned Collector declaring accordingly does not in my opinion call for any interference and appeal against the impugned order has to be dismissed. 5. It is, however, stated at the bar that the provisions of the Land Revenue Code have no application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther it is barred by time? 2. Whether the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property? Its effect? 3. (a) Whether the suit property was purchased by Ramjanki Prasad in a public auction about 27 years prior to 1886 and thereafter he obtained possession of the same. (b) Whether on 24.3.1986 Gourabai, widow of Ramjanki Prasad and Rai Baldev Bux son of Bakshi sold the same to deceased Seth Fatehchand son of Seth Dharamchand by registered sale deed and obtained possession thereunder? (c) Whether in 1920 after the death of Seth Fatehchand his widow Putri Sethani came in possession of the same as his legal heir? (d) Whether on 30.10.22 Settlement Commissioner, Central Provinces and Berar at Nagpur held that about Putri Sethani was the permanent lessee of the suit plot? (e) Whether on 8.5.61 the plaintiff and his brother defendant 2 on death of Putri Sethani came in possession of this property as her heirs? (f) Whether this property belongs to defendant No. 1? (g) Whether plaintiff and defendant No. 2 are owners of the same? 4. Relief, costs and compensatory costs? 10. All the issues were answered in favour of the plaintiff save and except issue No. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecovered from her. (i) As Putari Sethani had no title over the plot in dispute, the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 also do not have any title over this plot. 12. The learned Trial Judge by a queer process of reasonings, and only having regard to the entries made in the revenue records, came to contradictory and inconsistent findings that the State has also shown that it is the owner of the suit plot, although it was clearly opined that the plaintiff and the defendant no. 2 had proved their title and possession. Exhibit P-4 and Exhibit P-6 certified copy of the Khasras were relied upon by the learned Trial Judge to hold : in column No. 8 thereof, the same thing is written. Both these documents have been produced on behalf of the plaintiff who has relied on the same. From the 1920-21 settlement report produced by defendant No. 1 and the documents of the Revenue appeal, it is proved that the ownership rights over the urban residential Nazul lands are with the State and such land is given by the State on lease to individual persons and in this case also the same thing is proved that the suit plot was given to Smt. Putri Sethani on lease upto the period 31.3.1951. Exhibit P-4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... self-contradictory. We have noticed hereinbefore that the land in question was put to auction as far back as in the year 1859. The plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 and their predecessors in interest had all along been in possession thereof. While it may be true that the land in question in the revenue records of rights had been shown as Nazul land and the said late Smt. Putari Sethani filed an application for grant of a lease or paid rent to the State, it is evident from the order passed by the Commissioner of Settlements dated 30.10.22 that no such deed of lease was available on record. The property in question must be held to have been held by her and her predecessor in interest as a perpetual lessee. The learned Trial Judge, while arriving at the finding that Late Smt. Putari Sethani obtained a lease for a period of 30 years, did not refer to any documentary or oral evidence produced by the State. If a deed of lease was executed by the Collector in favour of Smt. Putari Sethani, the same should have been produced. In fact, as noticed hereinbefore, the Settlement Commissioner arrived at a positive finding that the Collector had not executed any deed of lease. The correctness ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Nazul lands, such Government lands are included which are used for construction projects or for general public facilities like Bazars or entertainment parks, or the lands which may possibly be required to be used in future for such projects. The categorization of the land which is in custody of any Department of the State Government or Central Government or which is recorded in the records of Government Lands, will be done. In brief, it can be said that Nazul is that land which if kept as open site carries more importance and not agriculture related. The lands which are generally categorized as Nazul lands, are as under:- - Plots of lands near the buildings, whether they are Government or non-government. - Cantonment lands; - Parks - Plots of lands used for Bazards, Haat or fairs; - Lands of Shamshan Chat (Crematorium); - Lands where possibility of construction is there, and other such lands where there is a possibility that these can be used for public purposes in the near future. Under the Nazul land, those Government plot of lands will also be included which are meant for Sarais, Kanji Hauzes, Bazars, etc. and which are in possession of the loca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d cannot be the case of the State that an oral lease was granted in favour of Putri Sethani. In a case involving the State and particularly when the nature of the land is said to be Nazul land, it was imperative on the part of the State to execute a deed of lease. As execution of such a document has not been proved, the learned Trial Judge, in our opinion, committed a manifest error in solely relying upon the entries made in the revenue record of rights despite noting the order of the Commissioner of Settlement dated 30.10.1922. Entries made in the revenue record of rights, it would bear repetition to state, cannot defeat the lawful title acquired by an auction purchaser, particularly, in view of the fact that Putri Sethani had questioned the order passed by the Collector of the District before the Commissioner of Settlement which ended in her favour. It is well-settled that payment or non-payment of rent does not create or extinguish title. 26. The plaint might not have been very happily drafted. But it is well known that, ordinarily, moffusil pleadings are not to be strictly construed as has been held in Des Raj Vs. Bhagat Ram [2007 (3 SCALE 371] in the following terms: It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
