Case: CHATTAR SINGH Vs. MADHO SINGH

shall be settled with such proprietor or such other person by the Government on such terms and conditions as it may determine. 9. Section 4 makes it clear that all lands (cultivable, barren or bir), forest, trees, village- sites, hats, bazars, mela-grounds shall vest in the State automatically free from all encumbrances. Section 4(2) provides saving of only khud-kasht land, which is so recorded in the Samvat year 2007 corresponding to the agricultural year 1950-51 before the date of vesting. The date of vesting is 2.10.1951. Khud-kasht has been defined in Section 2(c) as under: 2(c) Khud-kasht means land cultivated by the Zamindar himself or through employees or hired labourers and includes sir land; 10. In order to save the land from vesting Section 4(2) requires land to be personally cultivated by Zamindar or through employees or hired labourers and another sine qua non in that it should be so recorded in revenue papers as khud-kasht, otherwise all land vest in the State as provided in Section 4(1)(a). Once the land is recorded as Charnoi i.e., common land reserved for grazing of cattles of villagers, such common land clearly vests in the State as provided in Section 4(1) (a) all the land, the forest, trees, village-sites, pathways etc. vest in the State absolutely. Since the land was Charnoi i.e., common grazing land for cattle of the villagers having huge area 72 bighas 18 biswa the fruit-bearing trees of custard apple also vested in the State. 11. The provisions contained in Section 5(f) in Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act did not confer any rights on Zamindars on such common land and did not save same from vesting, once it was recorded as Charnoi for public purpose before the date of vesting in the year 1950-51 i.e., Samvat year 2007. Samvat year used to commence from 1 st July, and ended on 30 th June of next Gregorian calendar year. The provision of Section 5(f) would not come into play to confer any right on such common land. 12. In Shrimant Sardar Chandrojirao Angre (supra), this Court has observed as under: It would seem therefore that the word grove conveys compactness or at any rate substantial compactness to be recognized as a unit by itself which must consist of a group of trees in sufficient number to preclude the land on which they stand from being primarily used for a purpose, such as cultivation, other than as a grove-land. The language of Section 5(b)(iv) does not require however that the trees needs be fruit-bearing trees nor does it require that they should have been planted by human labour or agency. But they must be sufficient in number and so standing in a group as to give them the character of a grove and to retain that character the trees would or when fully grown preclude the land on which they stand from being primarily used for a purpose other than that of a grove-land. Cultivation of a patch here and a patch there would have no significance to deprive it of its character as a grove. Therefore, trees standing in a file on the roadside intended to furnish shade to the road would not fulfil the requirements of a grove even as understood in ordinary parlance. emphasis supplied It is apparent from aforesaid observations that grove to be recognized as such should be of such trees when fully grown preclude land on which they are standing from being primarily used for a purpose other than that of grove-land. This Court further observed that trees standing on the side of the road would not fulfil the requirement of a grove even as understood in the ordinary sense. Thus, when land is primarily used for Charnoi i.e. common grazing land for cattle of villagers, it would not fall into the category of grove and provision of Section 5(f) would not save such trees from vesting. The village sites, comprise of common land reserved for villagers, vest in State. It cannot be retained by Zamindar as he had no existing right on such land even before date of vesting, it being common land, it belonged to villagers. No individual can claim that such land belongs to him exclusively. The fruit bearing trees irrespective of numbers have also vested in the State under Section 4(1)(a). No right can be claimed on trees on such common land under Section 5(f) by a proprietor. The decision taken by the Additional Commissioner while holding that land being grazing land has vested in the State was in accordance with law. The Board of Revenues order to the contrary was perverse and illegal. 13. The question as to title in view of the provisions under the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 is the domain of civil court, the Trial Court was absolutely right in decreeing the suit in favour of villagers. Such common land could not have been settled at all in favour of the erstwhile proprietor or his legal representatives. The approach of the First Appellate Court holding it to be grove was perverse and contrary to the provisions and the law laid down by this Court in Shrimant Sardar Chandrojirao Angre (supra). The First Appellate Court has failed to understand the purport of Charnoi which is a common land reserved for the public purpose and is not exclusively for grazing of cattle of Zamindar. Such village sites/common land clearly vests in the State automatically free from all encumbrances. 14. Thus, we have absolutely no hesitation to reject the submissions raised by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and even the decision in Shrimant Sardar Chandrojirao Angre (supra) does not support the cause espoused that said case did not relate to Charnoi land. As such, decision is not at all applicable, even otherwise decision negates submission raised on behalf of appellants that it was grove. 15. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, we find absolutely no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]10. In order to save the land from vesting Section 4(2) requires land to be personally cultivated by Zamindar or through employees or hired labourers and another sine qua non in that it should be so recorded in revenue papers as khud-kasht, otherwise all land vest in the State as provided in Section 4(1)(a). Once the land is recorded as Charnoi i.e., common land reserved for grazing of cattles of villagers, such common land clearly vests in the State as provided in Section 4(1) (a) all the land, the forest, trees, village-sites, pathways etc. vest in the State absolutely. Since the land was Charnoi i.e., common grazing land for cattle of the villagers having huge area 72 bighas 18 biswa the fruit-bearing trees of custard apple also vested in the State11. The provisions contained in Section 5(f) in Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act did not confer any rights on Zamindars on such common land and did not save same from vesting, once it was recorded as Charnoi for public purpose before the date of vesting in the year 1950-51 i.e., Samvat year 2007. Samvat year used to commence from 1 st July, and ended on 30 th June of next Gregorian calendar year. The provision of Section 5(f) would not come into play to confer any right on such common landIt is apparent from aforesaid observations that grove to be recognized as such should be of such trees when fully grown preclude land on which they are standing from being primarily used for a purpose other than that of grove-land. This Court further observed that trees standing on the side of the road would not fulfil the requirement of a grove even as understood in the ordinary sense. Thus, when land is primarily used for Charnoi i.e. common grazing land for cattle of villagers, it would not fall into the category of grove and provision of Section 5(f) would not save such trees from vesting. The village sites, comprise of common land reserved for villagers, vest in State. It cannot be retained by Zamindar as he had no existing right on such land even before date of vesting, it being common land, it belonged to villagers. No individual can claim that such land belongs to him exclusively. The fruit bearing trees irrespective of numbers have also vested in the State under Section 4(1)(a). No right can be claimed on trees on such common land under Section 5(f) by a proprietor. The decision taken by the Additional Commissioner while holding that land being grazing land has vested in the State was in accordance with law. The Board of Revenues order to the contrary was perverse and illegal13. The question as to title in view of the provisions under the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 is the domain of civil court, the Trial Court was absolutely right in decreeing the suit in favour of villagers. Such common land could not have been settled at all in favour of the erstwhile proprietor or his legal representatives. The approach of the First Appellate Court holding it to be grove was perverse and contrary to the provisions and the law laid down by this Court in Shrimant Sardar Chandrojirao Angre (supra). The First Appellate Court has failed to understand the purport of Charnoi which is a common land reserved for the public purpose and is not exclusively for grazing of cattle of Zamindar. Such village sites/common land clearly vests in the State automatically free from all encumbrances14. Thus, we have absolutely no hesitation to reject the submissions raised by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and even the decision in Shrimant Sardar Chandrojirao Angre (supra) does not support the cause espoused that said case did not relate to Charnoi land. As such, decision is not at all applicable, even otherwise decision negates submission raised on behalf of appellants that it was grove15. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, we find absolutely no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court.