Begam Suraiya Rashid & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors

The facts of this case are cumbersome and may be recited briefly and strictly for the purpose of disposal of this appeal. The present disputed land measuring 59.17 acres in Khasra Nos.943, 960, 961 and 962 was recorded in the name of jail department and situated in the area of Bhopal city near the Arera Hills in front of old jail premises since 1935. It appears that the area was developed as a garden having trees of Mangoes, Jamun, Lemon etc. and the same was used to let out to different contractors and the property was managed from the income received from the fruits grown in the garden. No revenue was assessed on that income as the land belonged to the State Government. It is not disputed that the said land was given on lease to one Shri Bhawani Singh and Shri Jameel Ahmed by the Superintendent of Jail for a consideration of Rs.375/- per annum. Subsequently one Shri Rashiduzzafar Khan, the predecessor of the appellants, obtained a deed of relinquishment in his favour from the lessees Bhawani Singh and Jameel Ahmed. This was done without the concurrence and consent of the Government. Rashiduzzafar Khan continued using the land in the capacity of lessee and used to pay annual rent at the rate of Rs.375/-.

Rashiduzzafar Khan, predecessor of the appellants submitted an application in August, 1960 to the Government for recording his name as a Bhumiswami in respect of the said land in Khasra Nos.943, 960, 961 and 962. The same was, however, rejected by an order-dated 5.8.1962. Another application filed by the appellants herein was rejected on 29th/30th January, 1965 on the ground that the land in question was recorded in the name of jail department.

Thereafter, a proceeding under Section 248 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') was initiated for eviction of the appellants in 1981. It was held that the appellants were the trespassers and order of eviction was passed by the Tahsildar on 16.9.1981. The Tashildar's order was challenged before the SDO which was dismissed on 19.3.1985. SDO's order was challenged before the Commissioner in second appeal and the same was dismissed by the Commissioner on 29.6.1989. The order of the Commissioner was challenged by filing M.P. No.3978 of 1991, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.4.1998. Thereafter, the Commissioner's order was assailed before the Revenue Minister and he directed an enquiry in the matter and the said order was set-aside by the Government by its order dated 1.11.1991 on the ground that the Revenue Minister had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. This would show that the order of eviction passed by the Tahsildar on 16.9.1981 attained its finality.

Another attempt was made by the appellants by filing application under Section 57(2) of the Code on 14.11.1983 praying inter alia to declare Bhumiswami rights in their favour. The said application was filed before the SDO, Bhopal, on the basis of the registered deed dated 6.4.1940 executed by Bhawani Singh and Jameel Ahmed. This application was, however, not pursued by the appellants. Thereafter, the appellants filed civil suit No.159- A/84 in the Court of District Judge, Bhopal. In the said suit the State Government filed the written statement. The said suit was dismissed on withdrawal on 1.7.1998.

Thereafter, the appellants filed an application for mutation before the Naib Tahsildar in 1989. The said application was allowed by the Tahsildar on 29.1.1990. Suo Motu proceedings were drawn by the Collector, Bhopal on 3.8.1990. An enquiry was ordered against the Naib Tahsildar and by an enquiry report dated 27.4.1994 the Naib Tashildar was held guilty of ordering mutation improperly.

In the facts and circumstances this appeal is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed which we hereby do. Considering the fact that the appellants were suppressing the facts at every stage of proceeding, we deem it necessary that the appeal deserves to be dismissed with costs which we quantify at Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten Thousand Only). The appeal is dismissed with costs.