Case: Maulana Shamsuddin Vs. Khushi Lal and Others

Maulana Shamsuddin, the sole appellant in this appeal, was a Muafidar in the erstwhile State of Bhopal of the disputed lands in accordance with the Bhopal State Land Revenue A ct, 1932 (for brevity, the Bhopal Act of 1932) . The first respondent claimed to be a Shikmi of the appellant in respect of the lands in question. His case was that the appellant was the occupant of the lands within the meaning of the Bhopal Act o f 1932. On the coming into force of the M.P. Code of 1959. the appellant became a Bhumiswami under clause (c) of section 158 and the respondent became an occupancy tenant under section 185 (1)(i)(iv)(b).Thus he became entitled to conferment of Bhumiswami rights under Section 490. He applied before the Tahsildar, Huzur, respondent No. 5 for mutation of his name as a Bhumiswami in the Revenue records. The Tahsildar by his order dated the 24th June, 1963 directed Khushi Lal to deposit compensation equivalent to 15 times of the land revenue on the payment of which his name was to be recorded as a Bhumiswami of the holdings. It appears his name was so recorded on the deposit of the compensation money. The appellant filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional officers Huzur, respondent No. 4 from the order of the Tahsildar. His appeal was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional officer on the 12th of December, 1963. The appellant failed before the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal, respondent No. 3 on the dismissal of his second appeal on the 25th August 1996. He went in revision before the Board of Revenue, (respondent No. 2 ) . The revision was allowed on the 6th of July, 1965. The Board held that the appellant was not a n occupant within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Bhopal Act of 1932 and consequently the first respondent was not a Shikmi under the said Act. He did not become an occupancy tenant under the M.P. Code of 1959 and, therefore, conferral of Bhumiswami rights on him was erroneous in law. The first respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court and succeeded there. The High Court held that the Board was not right in its view of the law. The appellant was an occupant and the respondent no . 1 was a sub-tenant (Shikmi) under the Bhopal Act of 1932. Conscquently he became an occupancy tenant entitled to conferment of Bhumiswami rights under the M.P. Code of 1959. The appellant has preferred this appeal in this Court to challenge the decision of the High Court and for restoration of the order of the Board of Revenue.

Reasoning: Prima facie the argument, as presented, for the appellant appeared to have substance and force but on a close scrutiny we had no difficulty in rejecting itIt would thus be seen that if pursuant to the grant made by His Highness the Ruler of Bhopal, Governments right to receive land revenue was assigned to the grantee then he was called a Jagirdar and it was relinquished then the person in whose favour such relinquishment was made was called Muafidar. Under the first part of the definition of "occupant" given in sub-section (IS) a person who holds land direct from Government would be an occupant and being not a person in whose favour the right to receive land revenue has either bee n assigned or relinquished will be required to pay to the Government land revenue or rent. We are using both the words revenue and rent on the assumption that such an occupant being neither a Jagirdar nor a Muafidar would be required to pay some money to the Government for being in occupation of the land. Under the second part of the definition a Jagirdar or a Muafidar would also be holding land direct from Government but because the right of collecting land revenue has either been assigned or relinquished, strictly speaking, he does not hold land direct from the Government in the sense of paying any land revenue or rent to it because the Government has parted with the right to collect land revenue from him. We are of the opinion, in agreement with the High Court, that on a careful analysis of the definition of the term "occupant" in section 2(15), it is legitimate to conclude that even a Jagirdar or a Muafidar is an occupant. He holds land under the Government; on the resumption of the Jagir or the Muafirights by the Government the land reverts back to it. Payment of land revenue or rent for holding land under the Government was not a sine-qua-non for making the holder of the land an occupant."Rent" is de fined in sub-section (19) of Section 2 of the Bhopal Act of 1932 to mean "whatever is payable to an occupant in money, kind or service by a shikmi for the right to use land." This would show that strictly speaking a person holding the land direct from the Government within the meaning of the first part of the definition in sub- section (IS) is not to pay any money to the Government in the shape of rent but what he will be required to pay would be the land revenue. But a Jagirdar or a Muafidar holding the land under the Government is not required to pay any land revenue. sub-section (21) defines "Shikmi" to mean "a person who holds land from an occupant and is, or but for a contract, would be liable to pay rent for such land to that occupant, but does not include a mortgagee or a person holding land directly from Government." Respondent no. 1 was inducted upon the land by the appellant in the year 1958. Since then he had been cultivating the land. He could not but be a Shikmi within the meaning of sub-section (21 ) . Mr. Harbans Singh was not right in saying that he was a mere cultivator and was cultivating the land not as a sub-tenant or a Shikmi but must be doing so under some special arrangement of cultivating the land as a servant of the appellant or the like. There is no warrant for such a contentionWe do not feel inclined to agree with the High Court that the appellant became occupant under section 52(2) of the Bhopal Act of 1932 because he was a person who was entered into settlement records prior to the coming into force of that Act. Firstly it is not clear whether the facts so stated in the judgment of the High Court are (quite correct, and, secondly, it is admitted on all hands that the appellant was a Muafidar and, therefore, in our opinion he was an occupant within the meaning of Section 2(15)As held by us above the appellant was an occupant as defined in the Bhopal Act of 1932 and thus under clause (c) of Section 158 on the coming into force of the Code he became a Bhumiswami. But his Bhumiswami rights were liable to be conferred, under certain conditions, on the occupancy tenant under Section 190. As a matter of fact in accordance with the said provision the Bhumiswami rights were conferred on respondent no. 1 on payment of compensation being in the amount of 15 times of the land revenue for payment to the appellant. Our attention was drawn to a recital of facts in the Statement of the case of some of the respondents that the appellant had withdrawn the said amount of compensation. But we are not resting our judgment on that ground as in our opinion, whether he has withdrawn the amount of co mpensation or not, he cannot challenge the conferment of his Bhumiswami rights on respondent no. l. which have been validly and legally conferred.We may now briefly deal with a few more short submissions of the appellant. In section 185(1)(iv)(a) of the M.P. Code of 1959 it is provided that if a person who at the time of coming into force of tba said Code was holding any land as a sub-tenant as defined in the Bhopal State Sub- tenants Protection Act, 1952 shall also be calle d an occupancy tenant. A copy of this Act could not be made available for our perusal. But what we get from the order of the Board of Revenue is that a Sub-tenant as defined in the Bhopal Act of 1952 means a person who holds a parcel of khud kasta land from a Jagirdar. Along with this our attention was also drawn to the Bhopal State Sub Tenants (of occupants) Protection Act. 1954. In this Act, section 2(b) runs thus: -"The expression "occupant" shall have the same meaning as in the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932 (IV of 1932) and, for the purposes of this Act, it should also include a muafidar, as defined in Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932 (IV of 1932)"In other sections of the said Act protection against ejectment was given to the Shikmis. The argument was that protection to the sub-tenants of Jagirdars was given in the Bhopal Act of 1952 and protection to such persons was given in case of sub-tenants of Muafidar unde r the Bhopal Act of 1954 by including Muafidar in the expression occupant occurring in the said Act. Counsel, therefore, submitted that if the term occupant in the Bhopal Act of 1932 had included a Muafidar then there was no necess ity of expressly and separately including a Muafidar in the definition of the said expression. in the Act of 1954. In our opinion this argument has no substance. It may be by way of abundant precaution or for putting the matter beyond an y shadow of doubt that the expression occupant was defined in a comprehensive manner in the Bhopal Act of 1954. Section 3 of the said Act shows that even a Muafidar could sub-let a land to a person and induct hi as a Shikmi prior to the coming into force of this Act. Such a Shikmi got the protection against ejectment by operation of law engrafted in the Bhopal Act of 1954. After the passing of this Act? he no longer could be said to be a Shikmi only during the life time of the Muafidar but was so even beyond it.The counsel for the appellant called our attention to a decision of this Court in Begum Suriya Rashid and others v. Stale of Andhra Pradesh([1969]1 SCR 869  =1971 MPLJ. 352). In this case it was held that the muafi grants to the predecess or-in-interest of the appellants before the Supreme Court were not hereditary or perpetual and the appellants could not claim title as Muafidars even though some contradictory arabic expressions had keen used in the document of grant. This decision does not advance the case of the appellant any furtherIt would thus be seen that if pursuant to the grant made by His Highness the Ruler of Bhopal, Governments right to receive land revenue was assigned to the grantee then he was called a Jagirdar and it was relinquished then the person in whose favour such relinquishment was made was called Muafidar. Under the first part of the definition of "occupant" given inn (IS) a person who holds land direct from Government would be an occupant and being not a person in whose favour the right to receive land revenue has either bee n assigned or relinquished will be required to pay to the Government land revenue or rent. We are using both the words revenue and rent on the assumption that such an occupant being neither a Jagirdar nor a Muafidar would be required to pay some money to the Government for being in occupation of the land. Under the second part of the definition a Jagirdar or a Muafidar would also be holding land direct from Government but because the right of collecting land revenue has either been assigned or relinquished, strictly speaking, he does not hold land direct from the Government in the sense of paying any land revenue or rent to it because the Government has parted with the right to collect land revenue from him. We are of the opinion, in agreement with the High Court, that on a careful analysis of the definition of the term "occupant" in section 2(15), it is legitimate to conclude that even a Jagirdar or a Muafidar is an occupant. He holds land under the Government; on the resumption of the Jagir or the Muafirights by the Government the land reverts back to it. Payment of land revenue or rent for holding land under the Government was not an for making the holder of the land an occupant."Rent" is de fined inn (19) of Section 2 of the Bhopal Act of 1932 to mean "whatever is payable to an occupant in money, kind or service by a shikmi for the right to use land." This would show that strictly speaking a person holding the land direct from the Government within the meaning of the first part of the definition in subsection (IS) is not to pay any money to the Government in the shape of rent but what he will be required to pay would be the land revenue. But a Jagirdar or a Muafidar holding the land under the Government is not required to pay any land revenue.n (21) defines "Shikmi" to mean "a person who holds land from an occupant and is, or but for a contract, would be liable to pay rent for such land to that occupant, but does not include a mortgagee or a person holding land directly from Government." Respondent no. 1 was inducted upon the land by the appellant in the year 1958. Since then he had been cultivating the land. He could not but be a Shikmi within the meaning ofn (21 ) . Mr. Harbans Singh was not right in saying that he was a mere cultivator and was cultivating the land not as at or a Shikmi but must be doing so under some special arrangement of cultivating the land as a servant of the appellant or the like. There is no warrant for such a contentionThis section lends support to the view which we have expressed above that a person holding land directly under the Government and not being a Jagirdar or a Muafidar will be liable to pay land revenue to the Government in whatever name the payment of money may be described such as premium, rent,The High Court in its judgment has adverted to some sections contained in Chapter VI of the Bhopal Act of 1932. Section 51 provided for disposal of unoccupied land. Subsection (1) of section 52 says that a person acquiring the right to occupy land under section 51 will be called an occupant of such land and undert ion (2) all persons who, prior to the commencement of this Act, had been entered in settlement records as responsible for the payment of land revenue to the Government, or who, but for a special arrangement, would have been to responsible, would be deemed to be occupants within the meaning of Section 52. In our opinion this special arrangement mentioned inn (2) cannot be squarely equated with the assignment or relinquishment of the right to receive land revenue envisaged by the Bhopal Act of 1932.