http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHIV KUNWARBAI ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/04/1971

BENCH: MITTER, G.K. BENCH: MITTER, G.K. SIKRI, S.M. (CJ) HEGDE, K.S. GROVER, A.N. REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN

CITATION:  1971 AIR 1477            1971 SCR  407

ACT: Madhya Pradsh Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1952,  ss. 3 and 4-Eviction can be only from Government premises-Former ruler of Indian State claiming certain properties to be  his private property-Acceptance of his claim in respect of  some of  these  properties does not mean that the  properties  in respect  of  which the claim has not  been  accepted  become property of Government.

HEADNOTE: The ruler of the erstwhile State of Jhabua granted jagirs to N  and R. The Jagirs were forfeited in 1943.  On March.  30, 1948  the Ruler made an order purporting to declare a  large number of immovable properties, including certain houses  in the  occupation of N and R as his private proper. ties.   On April  1,  1948 the Ruler made another order  purporting  to grant  to N and R the right to continue to occupy  the  said houses  during  their life time without any right  to  sell, mortgage or create any charge thereon.  On June 29, 1948 the State  of Jhabua merged in the State of Madhya Bharat.   The Government  of the State of Madhya Bharat did not  recognise the claim  of  the erstwhile Ruler of Jhabua  to  all  the properties  claimed by him as his private  properties.   The properties in the occupation of N and R were among those not recognised as the Ruler’s private property.  The  possession of  N on the properties in her occupation was not  disturbed in  her lifetime.  On April 30, 1962 the Executive  Engineer District Dhar, submitted an application under s. 3 read with s.  4 of the Madhya Pradesh Government  Premises  (Eviction) Act,  1952  for  the eviction of  R  and  the  successor-in- interest  of N from the properties respectively occupied  by them.  Orders of eviction made by the Sub-Divisional Officer were  upheld  by the Collector in the appeals  filed  before him.   The  high Court however allowed  the  writ  petitions filed by N’s successors in interest and by R and quashed the orders  of  eviction  against them.   The  State  of  Madhya Pradesh appealed. HELD: The appeal must be dismissed, The  evidence  showed that some only of the  properties  set forth  the declaration of April, 1, 1948 and claimed by  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

Ruler  as  private property "were accepted as  such  by  the Government  of  Madhya  Bharat: there was  no  finding  with regard  to the others that they appertained to the Ruler  as distinct  from his private properties.  In order to  succeed the,  appellant  had to show that the  properties  had  been confiscated  by the Ex-ruler and had ceased to belong  to  N and R. [410E-G]. As the properties originally belonged to N and R there  must be  some evidence of the displacement of their title  before the  Eviction  Act could be made applicable  to  them.   The order  of  April 1, 1948 passed by the Ruler  could  not  be interpreted as an order of confiscation.  It was not  proved that the ownership of the properties had passed to the Ruler and thereafter first to the State of Madhya Bharat and  then to the State of Madhya Pradesh [410G-H] 408 In   order   to  enable  Government  to   take   Proceedings successfully  under  either s. 3 or 4 of the  Act,  it  must satisfy  the  Court  that the premises  in  respect  whereof action  was  taken was Government premises.   As  the  State ’ailed to establish this fact the question of eviction under the Act could never arise. [411E].

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos.  1164  and 1165 of 1967. Appeals  from the judgment and order dated December 1,  1965 of  the  Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore  Bench  in  Misc. Petition Nos. 18 and 19 of 1964. M.   S.  K. Sastri, M. N. Shroff for I. N. Shroff,  for  the appellant (in  both the appeals). B.   R. L. lyengar, R. A. Gupta and K. B. Rohatgi, for the respondent (in C. As.  No. 1164 of 1967). P.   C.  Bhartari,  J.  B.  Dadachanji,  O.  C.  Mathur  and Ravinder  Narain, for the respondent (in C. A. No.  1165  of 1967). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J,-The State of Madhya Pradesh has come up in appeal to  this  Court  from two orders of  the  State  High  Court allowing  two  writ petitions filed by the  two  respondents herein for quashing the orders of eviction made against them under  Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh  Government  Premises (Eviction) Act. The  facts in Civil Appeal No. 1164 of 1967 are as  follows. Many  years  back,  a former Ruler of the  Indian  State  of Jhabua  in Central India had given a jagir to his  mistress, Paswanji Smt. Navratanbai. Navratanbai had either  purchased or    constructed    two    houses    on    College    Marg. According  to the Writ Petition fled in the High  Court  the acquisition  was  out  of her private funds.  ’his  was  not however  admitted  in  the  return  to  the  petition.   The successor  of  the  former  Ruler  Dilipsingh  purported  to forfeit the jagir in the year 1943.  The order of forfeiture is  not on record but is sought to be borne out by an  order dated  1st April, 1948, evidently made in   anticipation  of the merger of the State in the Union of Madhya Bharat  which took  place  on  June  29, 1948.   The  order  addressed  to Paswanji Navratanbai ran :               "In September 1943 your jagir was  confiscated               to the State and you were granted Rs. 100  per               month  by  way of allowance vide  Parwana  No.               1735 dated 23-9-1943 and this amount was being               paid  to you on behalf of the Huzur  from  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

             civil  list because such types  of  allowances               etc.  are  paid  from  it.   But  now  as  new               arrangements are being               409               made  regarding the states of Malwa and  there               is  likelihood of reduction in the  percentage               of  the civil list, therefore,  the  aforesaid               monthly allowance shall henceforth be paid  to               you  every  month from  State,  Treasury  from               generation to generation.               You may reside in the two big houses of Khasgi               during your lifetime in which you are residing               at  present.  After your lifetime  both  these               houses  shall  be taken in possession  of  the               Huzur.   You  shall have no right to  sell  or               mortgage   or  create  any  charge  on   these               houses."               There  is another Huzur order on record  dated               30th March, 1948 purporting to declare a large               number of immovable properties as the  private               property  of the Ruler and the ruling  family.               Among  the properties set out at the  foot  of               the order are mentioned :               "6. (e) All houses which are occupied by  Bapu               Ram singh.               (f)   All houses which are in the occupancy of               Navratanbai". When the question of settling the list of private properties of  the Rulers of the integrating Estates in  Madhya  Bharat came  up before the Government of India, the  Political  and External Department of the Madhya Bharat Secretariat  passed an  order recording a ;decision regarding the settlement  of private  properties of the State of Jhabua.  The  memorandum dated  July  25,  1949 of  the  Madhya  Bharat  Secretariat, Political   and   External  Department,  shows   that   each department concerned had to take action for handing over all the  property  to  the Ruler concerned and to  see  that  no property out of the properties belonging to the Ruler and/or the  State  before the formation of Madhya Bharat  was  left with  the  Ruler excepting the properties  in  the  enclosed list.   The relevant list,, for the Ruler of Jhabua did  not include  the properties occupied either by Bapu Ramsingh  or Paswanji   Navratanbai.   Paswanji   Navratanbai   protested against  the inclusion of her houses in the list of  private properties made out by the Ruler of Jhabua and addressed a memorandum  to  the Raj Pramukh of Madhya Bharat  Union  for amendment of the inventory submitted by the said Ruler.   No steps  appear to have been taken to evict  Navratanbai  from the  said premises in her lifetime.  On 30th April 1962  the Executive  Engineer District Dhar, submitted an  application under  Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Madhya  Pradesh Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1952 for eviction of the respondents  in  Appeal  No.  1164  of  1967  from  the  two properties  formerly  belonging to Navratanbai  before  the. Sub  Divisional  Officer Jhabua, Constituted  the  competent authority under the Act.  An order of eviction made 410 by  the Sub Divisional Officer was upheld in appeal to  the, Collector.  Shivkunwarbai, widow of late Bapu Gordhansinghji son of Navratanbai filed a writ petition in the High  Court for quashing. the said order.  Appeal No. 1164/1967 is  from the said order. The facts in the other appeal i.e. 1165 of 1967 are  similar to  the facts just narrated.  In this case the  same  former Ruler  had  granted  a  jagir to his  son  Ramsingh  by  his

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

mistress  Paswanji  Bhagirathibai.   The  succeeding   Ruler purported  to  forfeit  the  jagir  and  granted  a  monthly allowance  of  Rs. 100.  An order similar to the  one  dated 30th March 1948 already mentioned was passed while the order of April 1, 1948 affected Ramsingh as it did Navratanbai  in the  other case.  There was an order of eviction as  in  the other case followed by a writ petition to the High Court. The  central question in these two appeals is,  whether  the State  of  Madhya  Bharat  ever  became  entitled  to  these properties  in the facts and circumstances  mentioned  which justified  its  attempt to evict the respondents  under  the provisions  of  the Act of 1952.  This would depend  on  the finding  as to whether these properties were taken  over  by the Union of Madhya Bharat following the merger of the State of  Jhabua therein in 1949.  The fact that some only of  the properties  set forth in the declaration of 1st  April  1948 and claimed by the Ruler as private property "were  accepted as  such" by the Government of Madhya Bharat does not  lead to the inference that all the other items of property in the said declaration were taken over by an Act of State.   There must  be  some positive evidence of such Act.   It  is  also possible  that  the  list had  wrongly  included  properties belonging  to  citizens of the State of Jhabua  about  which there  was no adjudication.  The records only show that  out of the list of properties submitted by the Ruler, a  certain number  of  them was treated by the Government of  India  as being  his  private properties.  There was no  finding  with regard  to the others that they appertained to the Ruler  as distinct  from  his private property.  As  these  properties originally  belonged to the predecessors-in-interest of  the respondent i.e. in C. A. 1166/1967 and the respondent in  C. A. 1165/1967 there must be some evidence of displacement  of their title before the Eviction Act could be made applicable to  them.  In order to succeed in the appeals the  appellant must   first   establish  that  the  properties   had   been confiscated  by  the Ex-Ruler and had ceased  to  belong  to Navratanbai  or Bapu Ramsingh.  The order of April  1,  1948 records  the confiscation of the jagirs and does not  record that  the  houses  in the  possession  of  Navratanbai  were similarly   confiscated,  assuming  that  confiscation   was possible  by a mere order of this type.  On the other  hand, the order shows that Bai Navratanbai was to have full use of the  houses  for  her lifetime but she was not  to  sell  or mortgage the 411 same.   The  declared that after her lifetime  the  property would be taken possession of by the Huzur does not amount to an  order  of confiscation and a re-grant  thereof  for  the donee’s lifetime. If the properties remained the property of Nawatanbai  after  the  passing of the said  order  of  1948 nothing  was  done  thereafter to show  that  she  lost  her interest  in  the provides or that the same  passed  to  the Union  of  Madhya Bharat ailed from the said  Union  to  the State of Madhya Pradesh.  When attempts are made to  deprive a  person  of  his lawful inheritance it must  be  shown  by irreproch able evidence that the person in possession ceased to  have any interest therein at a particular point of  time and  that by some process of law the property vested in  the person  seeking to eject he former lawful possessor.   There is  no  such  evidence in this case.  It  follows  that  the properties,  the  subject matter of the two  appeals,  never became  the  properties  of the Ruler  of  Jhabua  ownership whereof  passed to the Union of Madhya Bharat and  from  the Union  to  the State of Madhya Pradesh.  Section  3  of  the Madhya  Pradesh  Premises (Eviction) Act, 1952  enables  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

competent  authority under the Act to order inter alia  that the  person  in un auhorised occupation lot  any  Government premises  to vacate the same within 30 days of the  date  of the service of the notice in terms of the section.   Section 4 empowers the competent authority to assess damages on  the ground  of use and occupation by any person in  unauthorised occupation  of any Government premises.  In order to  enable Government to take proceedings successfully under either  of these sections, it must satisfy the Court that the  premises in respect whereof action was taken was Government premises. As  the State failed to establish this fact the question  of eviction under the Act could never arise. In the result, the appeals are dismissed with costs. G.C.                                 Appeals dismissed. 412