Case: Shrimant Sardar Chandrojirao Angre Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh

1. The appellant is the ex-jagirdar of certain villages called Jagir Nevri Bhorasa. It appears that while the jagir was in his possession he had constructed roads one of which is the road connecting Bhorasa with Dewas Astha Road. The road about 11/2 miles in length was lined on both sides with mango trees. In 1951 the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act, 28 of 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was passed for resumption of jagir lands in the State. Under that Act the right, title and interest of the appellant in his said jagir were extinguished and the jagir lands vested in the State. In 1955 the Tehsildar put up the mangoes grown on the said trees for Public auction. By his application dated February 8, 1955 the appellant objected to the said auction claiming that the said trees were planted and reared by him, that they constituted a "grove" within the meaning of S. 5 (b) (iv) of the Act and therefore continued to belong to him. The Tehsildar rejected the application. The appellants appeal and thereafter a revision before the Board of Revenue were also likewise rejected. The appellant then filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh but that also was dismissed on the ground that the said trees could not be said to constitute a "grove". The appellant has filed his appeal after obtaining special leave.

Reasoning: 4. These provisions show clearly that the legislature has used the word "trees" at three places in three different contexts: in secs. 4 (a), 5 (b) and 5 (c) apart from the expression "all groves wherever situate" in sub-cl. (iv) of sec. 5 (b). Whereas under sec. 4 (a) the trees are to vest in the State Government along with the forests, fisheries etc., the trees mentioned in sec. 5(b) (iii) and (c) are allowed to continue to belong to and be held by the jagirdar. Obviously the word "trees" in these provisions has not been used in any uniform sense and therefore has to be construed in the context in which it is used. For instance, the word "trees" in sec. 5(b) (iii) and (c) is placed in juxtaposition with other properties such as private buildings, places of worship, wells situated in lands included in the said enclosures and house sites referred to in sub-cls. (i) and (ii). It appears that the policy of the legislature was that jagir lands including forests, trees in such forests, fisheries wells, tanks, ponds, ferries, pathways, village sites etc., which were used by the public and in which the members of the public were interested were resumed while the land in personae cultivation of the jagirdar, enclosures used for agricultural and domestic purposes, house sites purchased for valuable consideration, private buildings places of worship, wells, trees standing on lands in such enclosures and house sites and tanks, trees, private wells and buildings in or on occupied land belonging to or held by the jagirdar were allowed to continue to belong to and be held by him. It will he seen that groves in sub-cl. (iv) of sec. (b) are included amongst properties allowed to continue to belong to and be held by the jagirdar. Sub-clause (iv) also shows that such groves need not be of fruit trees nor need the trees thereof have been planted by the jagirdar. The words "wherever situate" indicate that it is not necessary that they should be on lands or properties allowed to be retained by the jagirdar under S. 5. If a grove belonged to or was held by him, whether planted by him or of natural growth and wherever situate it is allowed to continue to belong to him and be held by him. The intention of the legislature appears therefore to be that properties which the jagirdar was in personal use and possession of or in respect of which he had paid valuable consideration are to be retained by him. It is in this context that we should construe sub-cl. (iv) of sec. 5 (b). A grove irrespective of where it is situate, but be belonging to or held by the jagirdar is to continue to belong to or to be held by him. To secure the fun and proper use and enjoyment of such a grove, if it is on land other than that which is allowed to be retained by him, sub-clause (iv) further provides that the land on which such a grove stands with the areas appurtenant thereto also shall be settled upon him in accordance with the M. B. Revenue Administration and Ryotwari Land Revenue and Tenancy Act Samvat 2007.t would seem therefore that the word "grove" conveys compactness or at any rate substantial compactness to be recognised 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 need be fruit-bearing trees nor coca 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 groveland. 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 road side intended to furnish shade to the road would not fulfil the requirement of a grove even as understood in ordinary parlance.We think there is some force in this argument which requires consideration. Neither the revenue authorities nor the High Court approached the question from this point of view and no inquiry at any stage seems to have been made whether there are at any place or places such group or groups of trees to constitute a grove or groves. All of them appear to have dismissed the appellants claim only because of the fact that the trees stand along the two sides of the road. It is possible that the road might have been constructed in this particular area because of a number of trees standing on both sides of it which would provide shade over it and form an avenue. In fairness to the appellant, we think it necessary that he should have an opportunity to establish that at some place or places along the said road there are trees sufficient in number and proximity to constitute a grove or groves.