http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KRISHNARAO SHINDE AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT29/01/1991

BENCH: THOMMEN, T.K. (J) BENCH: THOMMEN, T.K. (J) SAHAI, R.M. (J)

CITATION:  1991 AIR  489            1991 SCR  (1) 174  1991 SCC  (2)  81        JT 1991 (1)   239  1991 SCALE  (1)78

ACT:      M.P.  Land  Revenue Code, 1959-Sections 2(h),  181  and 182-Company whether a Government lessee.

HEADNOTE:      The Company-Respondent No. 3 entered into a contract of lease with the State Government for a period of one year and later it was extended for a further period of ten years.      When  proceedings were initiated on 16.7.1952 to  eject the Company, the Company filed suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction.      The trial Court holding that the Company did not become a ‘pakka’ tenant under Section 54(vii) of Part II of Act No. 66 of 1950 in respect of the suit land and that the  Company was "a Government lessee under section 181 of the M.P.  Land Revenue  Code, 1959, and was not an occupancy  tenant  under section 185 of the Code, dismissed the suit.      This judgment,  was affirmed by the High Court in First appeal,  observing that the land held by the  Company  under the lease was neither zamindari nor ryotwari land.      Against  that judgment, the Company filed an appeal  in this Court which was withdrawn in 1971.      Subsequently, the State entered into an agreement  with the Company to grant a fresh lease for a period of ten years from  9.2.1971  subject to the payment of enhanced  rent  as agreed upon between the parities.      Since  the Company failed to pay the agreed  rents  and contravened  the conditions of the lease,  proceedings  were initiated under Section 182(2)(i) of the Code, for  eviction of the Company from the land in question.                                                        175      Eviction  order  was quashed by the High  Court  holding that the lease in question was not covered by section 181 of the  Code and that the Company could not be evicted  by  the summary proceeding provided for under that section,  against which the appeal has been filed.      Allowing the appeal, this Court,      HELD:  1.  A ‘Government lessee’ is defined  under  the M.P. land Revenue Code, 1959 as "a person holding land  from the State Government under section 181". [178E]      2.  As  per the provisions in section 181 of  the  M.P.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

Land Revenue Code, 1959 whether or not the company has  been holding the land in terms of the original lease or under the newly  stipulated terms of the lease, the Company  has  been holding the land from the State Government and it has  never been an ordinary tenant as defined in the Madhya Bharat  Act No. 66 of 1950.  Accordingly, whether considered in term  of sub-section  (1)  or  sub-section (2) of  section  181,  the Company  has been at all material times a Government  lessee in respect of the land in question. [179 G-180 A]      3.  It was in terms of sub-section 2(i) of section  182 that the Additional Collector made his Order for eviction of the  Company.  The finding of the Additional Collector is  a finding  of fact based on evidence and is not liable  to  be questioned in these proceedings.  Large amounts are due  and payable  by the Company as rent.  In the circumstances,  the Additional  Collector was well justified in having  recourse to the proceeding prescribed under section 182 of the  Code. [180 F-181 A]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:  Civil Appeal No. 1046 of 1982.      From  the  Order dated 20.9.1980 of the  Madhya  Pradesh High Court in M.P. No. 84 of 1978.      Dr. N.M. Ghatate, S.V. Deshpande and S.K. Agnihotri for the Appellants.      Aman  Vachher,  S.K.  mehta, Mrs.  Anjali  Verma,  D.N. Mishra  (for  JBD  &  Co.)  and  Ashok  Srivastava  for  the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      T.K. THOMMEN, J. This appeal by the State of Madhya                                                        176 Pradesh  arises  from the Order of the Madhya  Pradesh  High Court  in Misc. Petition No.84 of 1978 quashing Order  dated 1.10.1977  of the Additional Collector, Gwalior, whereby  he initiated  proceedings  against  the  3rd  respondent,  the Gwalior  Dairy  Limited (hereinafter called  ‘the  Company’) under section 182(2)(i) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code,  1959 (‘the Code’).  Respondent Nos. 1,2 and 4 are shareholders of the third respondent.  The High Court by the impugned  Order held that the Company was not a Government lessee within the meaning  of  section 181 [read with section 2(h)]  and  was, therefore,  not liable to be proceeded against in  terms  of section 182.      The  Order of the Additional Collector, Gwalior,  which was  impugned in the High Court, was made consequent on  the failure  of the Company to pay the rent agreed upon  between the   Government   and  the  Company   subsequent   to   the unconditional withdrawal by the Company of its Civil  Appeal No.  299  of  1967 which was pending in  this  Court.   That appeal had been brought to this Court by the Company against an  earlier judgement of the High Court dated 30.6.1‘964  in First  Appeal  No.  1  of  1961  whereby  the  High  Court, confirming  the judgement of the trial court and  dismissing the Company’s appeal, held that the land admeasuring  495.05 acres was held by the Company in terms of the lease  granted by  the State and the Company was not a ‘pakka’  tenant  and did not enjoy the status of a " Gair Maurusi" tenant.      The  Company entered into a contract of lease with  the Gwalior  State Government (Sanitary Engineering  Department) for  a  period of one year in Samvat 1999.   The  lease  was extended for a further period  of ten years in Samvat  2000. When  proceedings were initiated on 16.7.1952 to  eject  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

Company,  the  Company  filed  Suit  No.  14  of  1960   for declaration  of title and perpetual injunction.   Issue  No. 1(1) in that Suit was in the following words:          "Whether the plaintiff in accordance with paras 5 &          6 of the Plaint was a ‘gair Maurusi tenant’ and now          by   virtue  of  the  Revenue  Administration   and          Ryotwari  Land  Revenue and Tenancy Act  of  Samwat          2007 has become a ‘Pakka Tenant’.          If so, what is its effect on the suit?" That  issue  was answered in the negative.  The  Court  held that  the Company did not enjoy the status of  Gair  Maurusi tenant  and  that it had not become a ‘pakka’  tenant  under section 54(vii) of Part II of Act                                                        177 No.  66  of 1950 in respect of the land  in  question.   The Court  held that the Company was "a Government lessee  under section  181  of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959  with  the rights  and liabilities enumerated in section 182".  It  was also held that the Company was not an occupancy tenant under section  185  of the Code as it had not become  an  ordinary tenant  earlier in Madhya Bharat under Act No. 66  of  1950. This judgement, as stated earlier, was affirmed by the  High Court by its judgement dated 30.6.1964 in First Appeal No. 1 of 1961.  The High Court observed  that the land held by the Company  under the lease was neither zamindari nor  ryotwari land.  The Zamindari Abolition Act did not apply to the land as it had become vested in the State long prior to the  Act. The High Court observed:          ".....the  lands  comprised in the  Gwalior  Sewage          Farm were never notified to be a Ryotwari  village.          The  lands which have been acquired by the  Gwalior          State  in connection with the Gwalior  Sewage  Farm          could  not,  after their acquisition for  a  public          purpose  be  notified  to be  part  of  a  Ryotwari          village....the  lands were not ‘Pandat’  lands  nor          were  the  lands  included  in  Ryotwari   village.          Special  leases  granted by the  erstwhile  Gwalior          State in respect of such lands as had been acquired          for  a  public purpose, namely  construction  of  a          sewage system were governed not by any law for  the          time  being in force but by the terms of  lease  in          each case.  I have already explained above that  to          these   lands  the  provisions  of  the   Zamindari          Abolition  Act  did  not  apply,  since  they  were          already  held  by  the State when  that  came  into          force....  the  defendant  (the  State)  has   been          successful  in  showing  that  the  plaintiff  (the          Company)  never   acquired  the status  of  a  Gair          Maurusi tenant in respect of the land in dispute at          any time prior to the coming into force of the  Act          No. 66 of 1950 and that he could not, by virtue  of          the  provisions of that Act become a  Pukka  tenant          thereof".      It was from that judgement that the Company had brought to  this Court Civil Appeal No. 299 of 1967 and that  appeal was,  as  stated earlier, unconditionally withdrawn  by  the Company  in 1971.  Subsequently, the State entered  into  an agreement  with  the Company to grant a fresh  lease  for  a period of ten years from 9.2.1971 subject to the payment  of enhanced rent as agreed upon between the parties.  Since the Company failed to pay the agreed rents and thus  contravened the  conditions of the lease, proceedings were initiated  by the                                                        178 Additional  Collector  by  his  Order  dated  1.10.1977  for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

eviction  of  the Company from the land in  question.   That Order was made under section 182(2)(i) of the Code.  It  was that  Order  which  was quashed by the  High  Court  by  its impugned  Order dated 20.9.1980.  The High Court  held  that the lease in question was not covered by section 181 of  the Code  and  that  the Company could not  be  evicted  by  the summary proceeding provided for under that section.      As  stated earlier, the High Court had, in the  earlier proceeding  held that the Company was not a ‘pakka’  tenant. That judgement of the High Court became by the unconditional withdrawal  of  the appeal filed in this Court  against  it. The Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 (Act  No  66  of 1950), which  was the law  in  force  until repealed by the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, defined "pakka tenant" as follows:          "S. 54 (vii).  Pakka tenant-means a tenant who  has          been  or  whose  predecessor-in-interest  had  been          lawfully  recorded in respect of his holding  as  a          ‘Ryot  Pattedar’, ‘Mamuli Maurusi’ ‘Gair  Maurusi’,          and ‘Pukhta Maurusi’ when this Act comes into force          or who may in future be duly recognised as such  by          a competent authority.          Explanation--The  term  ‘Pukhta  Maurusi’  included          Istmurardar  tenants, Malikana Haq-holder  tenants,          Hakkiyat  Mutafarrikat Sharah Muayyana and  Sakitul          Mikiyat tenants".      An  ‘ordinary tenant’ is defined by Act No. 66 of  1950 as "a tenant other than a Pakka tenant and shall not include a  sub-tenant". The position, therefore, was that, in  terms of Act No. 66 of 1950, the  Company was not a pakka  tenant, as  found by the High Court in the earlier  judgement,  and, therefore,  it was, according to the said Act,  an  ordinary tenant.      The High Court had found in the earlier proceeding that the  land  in question was held by the Company  under  lease from  the  Government  after it had  been  acquired  by  the Government for a public purpose of the State.  The question, therefore,  is  whether  the Company was, as  found  by  the Additional Collector, a Government lessee within the meaning of  the  Code.  It is to be noticed that subsequent  to  the withdrawal  of the appeal from this Court, fresh terms  were agreed upon between the Company and the Government to enable the Com-                                                        179 pany  to remain in possession of the land as a lessee.   The Company  is  thus a person holding the land from  the  State Government.  This is so whether or not the Company is deemed to  be  holding over under the old lease  or  holding,  upon termination  of that lease, under and in terms of the  fresh conditions  agreed  upon between the parties to  enable  the Company to remain in possession of the land as a lessee.  In either event, the Company has been holding the land from the State.  It is not  and cannot be disputed that the  original lease  was  obtained  from the  predecessor  State  and  the Company continued to remain in possession of the land  under the  newly stipulated terms agreed upon between the  Company and the successor State, namely, the Madhya Pradesh State.      A  ‘Government Lessee’ is defined under the  M.P.  Land Revenue Code, 1959 as "a person holding land from the  State Government  under  section  181", Section 181  of  the  Code reads:          "181.  Government  Lessees. (1)  Every  person  who          holds  land from the State Government or to whom  a          right  to  occupy  land is  granted  by  the  State          Government or the Collector and who is not entitled

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

        to  hold  land as a Bhumiswami shall  be  called  a          Government lessee in respect of such land.          (2)  Every person who at the coming into  force  of          this Code-          (a)  hold any land  in the Madhya Bharat region  as          an ordinary tenant as defined in the Madhya  Bharat          Land  Revenue  and Tenancy Act, Samvat2007  (66  of          1950); or          (b)...............................................          (c)...............................................          shall  be  deemed  to be  a  Government  lessee  in          respect of such land".      These  provisions show that whether or not the  Company has been holding the land in terms of the original lease  or under  the newly stipulated terms of the lease, the  Company has been holding the land                                                        180 from the State Government and it has never been an  ordinary terms  as defined in the Madhya Bharat Act No. 66  of  1950. Accordingly  whether considered in terms of sub-section  (1) or  sub-section (2) of section 181, the Company has been  at all  material  times a Government lessee in respect  of  the land  in question.  Accordingly, section 182 of the Code  is attracted.  That section reads:          "182.  Rights and liabilities of Government lessee-          -(1)  A  Government lessee shall,  subject  to  any          express  provision in this Code, hold his  land  in          accordance  with  the terms and conditions  of  the          grant,  which shall be deemed to be a grant  within          the  meaning of the Government Grants Act, 1895 (XV          of 1985).          (2)  A  Government lessee may be ejected  from  his          land  by order of a Revenue Officer on one or  more          of the following grounds, namely:-          (i) that he has failed to pay the rent for a period          of  three months from the date on which  it  became          due; or          (ii)  that he has used such land for purpose  other          than for which it was granted; or          (iii) that the term of his lease has expired or          (iv)  that he has contravened any of the terms  and          conditions of the grant:             Provided  that  no  order  for  ejectment  of  a          Government  lessee under this sub-section shall  be          passed  without giving him an opportunity of  being          heard in his defence".      It was in terms of sub-section 2(i) of section 182 that the Additional Collector made his order for eviction of  the Company.   The  finding  of the Additional  Collector  is  a finding  of fact based on evidence and is not liable  to  be questioned  in  these proceedings.  His finding  shows  that large amounts are due and payable by the Company as rent and that  the  rents have remained unpaid for a  period  far  in excess  of three months from the dates on which they  became due.   In  the circumstances, the Additional  Collector  was well   justified  in  having  recourse  to  the   proceeding prescribed under section 182 of the                                                        181 Code.  The finding of the High Court to the contrary was, in our view, totally unjustified and opposed to law.      In  the circumstances, the impugned Order of  the  High Court dated 20.9.1980 in Misc. Petition No 84 of 1978 is set aside.    The  Order  of  the  Additional  Collector   dated 1.10.1977 in Case No. 1-75-76A-39: 182 shall stand restored. The appeal by the State is allowed with costs throughout.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

V.P.R.                                  Appeal allowed.                                                        182