Civil Appeal No 1046 of 1982
From the Order dated 2091980 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in MP No 84 of 1978
Dr NM Ghatate SV Deshpande and SK Agnihotri for the Appellants
Aman Vachher SK mehta Mrs Anjali Verma DN Mishra for JBD  Co and Ashok Srivastava for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by TK THOMMEN J
This appeal by the State of Madhya 176 Pradesh arises from the Order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc
Petition No84 of 1978 quashing Order dated 1101977 of the Additional Collector Gwalior whereby he initiated proceedings against the 3rd respondent the Gwalior Dairy Limited hereinafter called the Company  under section 1822i of the MP Land Revenue Code 1959 the Code 
Respondent Nos
12 and 4 are shareholders of the third respondent
The High Court by the impugned Order held that the Company was not a Government lessee within the meaning of section 181 read with section 2h and was therefore not liable to be proceeded against in terms of section 182
The Order of the Additional Collector Gwalior which was impugned in the High Court was made consequent on the failure of the Company to pay the rent agreed upon between the Government and the Company subsequent to the unconditional withdrawal by the Company of its Civil Appeal No 299 of 1967 which was pending in this Court
That appeal had been brought to this Court by the Company against an earlier judgement of the High Court dated 3061964 in First Appeal No 1 of 1961 whereby the High Court confirming the judgement of the trial court and dismissing the Company s appeal held that the land admeasuring 49505 acres was held by the Company in terms of the lease granted by the State and the Company was not a pakka  tenant and did not enjoy the status of a  Gair Maurusi tenant
The Company entered into a contract of lease with the Gwalior State Government Sanitary Engineering Department for a period of one year in Samvat 1999
The lease was extended for a further period of ten years in Samvat 2000
When proceedings were initiated on 1671952 to eject the Company the Company filed Suit No 14 of 1960 for declaration of title and perpetual injunction
Issue No 11 in that Suit was in the following words Whether the plaintiff in accordance with paras 5  6 of the Plaint was a gair Maurusi tenant  and now by virtue of the Revenue Administration and Ryotwari Land Revenue and Tenancy Act of Samwat 2007 has become a Pakka Tenant 
If so what is its effect on the suit That issue was answered in the negative
The Court held that the Company did not enjoy the status of Gair Maurusi tenant and that it had not become a pakka  tenant under section 54vii of Part II of Act 177 No 66 of 1950 in respect of the land in question
The Court held that the Company was a Government lessee under section 181 of the MP Land Revenue Code 1959 with the rights and liabilities enumerated in section 182
It was also held that the Company was not an occupancy tenant under section 185 of the Code as it had not become an ordinary tenant earlier in Madhya Bharat under Act No 66 of 1950
This judgement as stated earlier was affirmed by the High Court by its judgement dated 3061964 in First Appeal No 1 of 1961
The High Court observed that the land held by the Company under the lease was neither zamindari nor ryotwari land
The Zamindari Abolition Act did not apply to the land as it had become vested in the State long prior to the Act
The High Court observed  the lands comprised in the Gwalior Sewage Farm were never notified to be a Ryotwari village
The lands which have been acquired by the Gwalior State in connection with the Gwalior Sewage Farm could not after their acquisition for a public purpose be notified to be part of a Ryotwari village the lands were not Pandat  lands nor were the lands included in Ryotwari village
Special leases granted by the erstwhile Gwalior State in respect of such lands as had been acquired for a public purpose namely construction of a sewage system were governed not by any law for the time being in force but by the terms of lease in each case
I have already explained above that to these lands the provisions of the Zamindari Abolition Act did not apply since they were already held by the State when that came into force the defendant the State has been successful in showing that the plaintiff the Company never acquired the status of a Gair Maurusi tenant in respect of the land in dispute at any time prior to the coming into force of the Act No 66 of 1950 and that he could not by virtue of the provisions of that Act become a Pukka tenant thereof
It was from that judgement that the Company had brought to this Court Civil Appeal No 299 of 1967 and that appeal was as stated earlier unconditionally withdrawn by the Company in 1971
Subsequently the State entered into an agreement with the Company to grant a fresh lease for a period of ten years from 921971 subject to the payment of enhanced rent as agreed upon between the parties
Since the Company failed to pay the agreed rents and thus contravened the conditions of the lease proceedings were initiated by the 178 Additional Collector by his Order dated 1101977 for eviction of the Company from the land in question
That Order was made under section 1822i of the Code
It was that Order which was quashed by the High Court by its impugned Order dated 2091980
The High Court held that the lease in question was not covered by section 181 of the Code and that the Company could not be evicted by the summary proceeding provided for under that section
As stated earlier the High Court had in the earlier proceeding held that the Company was not a pakka  tenant
That judgement of the High Court became by the unconditional withdrawal of the appeal filed in this Court against it
The Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue and Tenancy Act Samvat 2007 Act No 66 of 1950 which was the law in force until repealed by the MP Land Revenue Code 1959 defined pakka tenant as follows section 54 vii
Pakka tenant means a tenant who has been or whose predecessor in interest had been lawfully recorded in respect of his holding as a Ryot Pattedar  Mamuli Maurusi  Gair Maurusi  and Pukhta Maurusi  when this Act comes into force or who may in future be duly recognised as such by a competent authority
Explanation The term Pukhta Maurusi  included Istmurardar tenants Malikana Haq holder tenants Hakkiyat Mutafarrikat Sharah Muayyana and Sakitul Mikiyat tenants
An ordinary tenant  is defined by Act No 66 of 1950 as a tenant other than a Pakka tenant and shall not include a sub tenant
The position therefore was that in terms of Act No 66 of 1950 the Company was not a pakka tenant as found by the High Court in the earlier judgement and therefore it was according to the said Act an ordinary tenant
The High Court had found in the earlier proceeding that the land in question was held by the Company under lease from the Government after it had been acquired by the Government for a public purpose of the State
The question therefore is whether the Company was as found by the Additional Collector a Government lessee within the meaning of the Code
It is to be noticed that subsequent to the withdrawal of the appeal from this Court fresh terms were agreed upon between the Company and the Government to enable the Com 179 pany to remain in possession of the land as a lessee
The Company is thus a person holding the land from the State Government
This is so whether or not the Company is deemed to be holding over under the old lease or holding upon termination of that lease under and in terms of the fresh conditions agreed upon between the parties to enable the Company to remain in possession of the land as a lessee
In either event the Company has been holding the land from the State
It is not and cannot be disputed that the original lease was obtained from the predecessor State and the Company continued to remain in possession of the land under the newly stipulated terms agreed upon between the Company and the successor State namely the Madhya Pradesh State
A Government Lessee  is defined under the MP Land Revenue Code 1959 as a person holding land from the State Government under section 181 Section 181 of the Code reads 181
Government Lessees
1 Every person who holds land from the State Government or to whom a right to occupy land is granted by the State Government or the Collector and who is not entitled to hold land as a Bhumiswami shall be called a Government lessee in respect of such land
2 Every person who at the coming into force of this Code a hold any land in the Madhya Bharat region as an ordinary tenant as defined in the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act Samvat2007 66 of 1950 or b         c         shall be deemed to be a Government lessee in respect of such land
These provisions show that whether or not the Company has been holding the land in terms of the original lease or under the newly stipulated terms of the lease the Company has been holding the land 180 from the State Government and it has never been an ordinary terms as defined in the Madhya Bharat Act No 66 of 1950
Accordingly whether considered in terms of sub section 1 or sub section 2 of section 181 the Company has been at all material times a Government lessee in respect of the land in question
Accordingly section 182 of the Code is attracted
That section reads 182
Rights and liabilities of Government lessee 1 A Government lessee shall subject to any express provision in this Code hold his land in accordance with the terms and conditions of the grant which shall be deemed to be a grant within the meaning of the XV of 1985
2 A Government lessee may be ejected from his land by order of a Revenue Officer on one or more of the following grounds namely i that he has failed to pay the rent for a period of three months from the date on which it became due or ii that he has used such land for purpose other than for which it was granted or iii that the term of his lease has expired or iv that he has contravened any of the terms and conditions of the grant Provided that no order for ejectment of a Government lessee under this sub section shall be passed without giving him an opportunity of being heard in his defence
It was in terms of sub section 2i of section 182 that the Additional Collector made his order for eviction of the Company
The finding of the Additional Collector is a finding of fact based on evidence and is not liable to be questioned in these proceedings
His finding shows that large amounts are due and payable by the Company as rent and that the rents have remained unpaid for a period far in excess of three months from the dates on which they became due
In the circumstances the Additional Collector was well justified in having recourse to the proceeding prescribed under section 182 of the 181 Code
The finding of the High Court to the contrary was in our view totally unjustified and opposed to law
In the circumstances the impugned Order of the High Court dated 2091980 in Misc
Petition No 84 of 1978 is set aside
The Order of the Additional Collector dated 1101977 in Case No 1 75 76A 39 182 shall stand restored
The appeal by the State is allowed with costs throughout
VPR Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellant issued a notice calling upon the respondent who was a dealer in tobacco to show cause why duty should not be demanded under Rule 160 of the Central Excise Rules 1944 on the tobacco removed from his warehouse and not accounted for and further to show cause why penalty should not be imposed for infraction of the Rules
The respondent sent a detailed reply and after hearing him the appellant came to the conclusion that the respondent had evaded payment of duty
Thereupon the appellant issued a demand notice for the duty payable and further imposed a penalty
The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the order of the appellant
The learned Single Judge allowed the petition taking the view that the appellant s action was time barred because under section 402 of the no suit prosecution or other legal proceedings could be instituted for anything done or ordered to be done under the law after the expiration of six months from the accrual of the cause of action
The Division Bench dismissed the appellant s appeal
Before this Court it was inter alia contended on behalf of the appellant that the expression other legal proceeding  is preceded by particular words of a certain genus ie suit  and prosecution  indicating reference to proceedings taken in courts only and therefore the wide words must be limited to things ejusdem generis and must take colour from the preceding words and receive a limited meaning to exclude proceedings of the type in question
Allowing the appeal of the Revenue this Court HELD 1 The rule of ejusdem generis is generally invoked where 127 the scope and ambit of the general words which follow certain specific words which have some common characteristic and constitute a genus is required to be determined131G 2 The cardinal rule of interpretation is to allow the general words to take their natural wide meaning unless the language of the statute gives a different indication or such meaning is likely to lead to absurd results in which case their meaning can be restricted by the application of the rule of ejusdem generis and they may be required to fall in line with the specific things designated by the proceding words
But unless there is a genus which can be comprehended from the preceding words there can be question of invoking this rule
Nor can this rule have any application where the general words precede specific words 132B C 3 The wide expression other legal proceeding  must be read ejusdem generis with the preceding words suit  and prosecution  as they constitute a genus
133H 4Suit  or prosecution  are those judicial or legal proceedings which are lodged in a court of law and not before any executive authority even if a statutory one
132E F 5 The penalty and adjudication proceedings in the instant case did not fall within the expression other legal proceeding  employed in section 402 of the Act as it stood prior to its amendment by Art22 of the 1973 and therefore the said proceedings were not subject to the limitation prescribed by the said sub section
 133H 134A Public Prosecutor Madras vs R Raju  Anr
   Universal Cables Ltd vs union of India 1977 ELT J92 Amar Chandra vs Excise Collector Tripura   CC Industries  Ors
vs HN Ray  Anr  referred to