Case: Additional Settlement Commissioner Vs. Yashwant Mahadeo Mahajan

1. Out of a total area of 2,375 acres 3 gunthas of Dhanora-an Izara village in Taluka Pusad in the State of Madhya Pradesh-2,283 acres and 28 gunthas is assessed land and the remaining 91 acres and 15 gunthas is unassessed. One Surat Singh who was the proprietor of the village, by sale-deed, dated May 24, 1947, conveyed an undivided half share in the village to Yeshwant Madhao Mahajan-hereinafter called Mahajan-for Rupees 25,000 and on the same day executed a kabulayat (lease deed) for five years in respect of the same land for cultivation at an annual rental of Rs. 3,000. The Legislature of the Madhya Pradesh State enacted the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1 of 1951-hereinafter called the Act-to provide for acquisition of the rights of proprietors in estates, mahals, alienated villages and alienated lands in Madhya Pradesh and to make provision for other matters connected therewith. The Act was brought into operation on March 14, 1951. The Compensation Officer, Yeotmal started an enquiry about assessment of compensation in respect of the village Dhanora which had vested by the operation of S. 3 of the Act in the State Government. Before the Compensation Officer, Mahajan claimed to retain possession of a half share in all the fallow lands in the village which had been leased by him under the deed (kabulayat), dated May 24, 1947, to Surat Singh, on the plea that these lands were "home-farm". This claim was rejected by the Compensation Officer and the order of the Compensation Officer was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. Mahajan then applied to the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a direction quashing the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the Compensation Officer and for a declaration that the lands mentioned in Schedule A attached to the petition be declared home-farm and for a writ of mandamus against the State of Madhya Pradesh to deliver possession of all the lands mentioned in that Schedule. The High Court quashed the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner in so far as it related to the undivided half share in Survey Nos. 1 to 91 except those in possession of the specified tenants and also those already recognised as home-farm and directed the Compensation Officer to decide the claim made by Mahajan in the light of the law laid down in the judgment. Against the order passed by the High Court, the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the State of Bombay, which had by virtue of the State Reorganization Act, 1956, been substituted for the State of Madhya Pradesh, have appealed to this Court with special leave.

Reasoning:
5. Mahajan was undoubtedly at the date of vesting the superior holder of the half share in the fallow lands which were held by Surat Singh as lessee from him. Prima facie the claim of Mahajan was covered by Cl. (g) (3) (ii) of S. 2 of the Act, and Mahajan was entitled to the benefit of the exception in S. 4our view, there is no substance in either of these contentions. Schedule A to the petition sets out the description of the various lands which Mahajan claimed should be treated as "home-farm" land. Each of these lands is assessed. The expression holding is not defined in the Act, but by Cl. (d) of S. 2 expressions not defined in the Act in relation to Berar but used or explained in the Berar Land Revenue Code, 1928, have the meaning assigned to those expressions in the latteris true that mahajan was not entitled to the entire area of each of these holdings but by the definition in the Act all lands included in holdings in Berar, provided they fulfil the conditions in Cl. (i), (ii) or (iii) of sub-cl. (3) are "home-farm" lands. In other words, a part of the holding or an undivided interest in the holding may also be "home-farm" land if it otherwise fulfils the requirements of Cl. (i), (ii) or (iii) of sub-cl. (3).6. That a half share in the village - which is included in the Schedule to the petition-was granted to Surat Singh on lease for cultivation cannot be gain-said in view of the express covenants of the kabulayat. Certain lands in the village it is true, were lying fallow wholly or partially at the date of the vesting, but the lands having been granted in lease for cultivation, in our judgment, they are by virtue of S. 4 (2) to be retained in the possession of the proprietor, provision of Cl. (1) of S. 4 notwithstanding. By sub-s. (2) of S. 4 all "home-farm" lands are to remain in possession of the proprietor: there is no express exclusion of lands lying fallow from the benefit of S. 4 (2) and none such can be implied either from the scheme of the Act or the context in which S. 4 (2) occurs. If Mahajan had remained in occupation as proprietor and had allowed the lands to remain fallow they may have vested in the State and Mahajan may not have been entitled to claim the benefit of S. 4 (2) unless his case fell under Cls. (i) and (ii) of S. 2 (g) (3), but the grant of a lease for cultivation evidences an intention on the part of Mahajan that the land be converted to agricultural purposes, and default on the part of the lessee to cultivate those lands will not deprive the lessor-proprietor of the benefit granted to him by the statute.7. In our view, the High Court was right in holding that the words of Cl. (ii) of S. 2 (g) (3) were explicit and a survey number which was lying fallow but was held by a lessee from the superior holder fell within the definition of "home-farm"