1244 and 1245 of 1967 and adjudicated upon the question whether the claim made by the respondent that the tanks and wells in question were companystructed on occupied i and belonging to the jagirdar within the meaning of s. 5 c of the madhya bharat abolition of jagirs acts samvat 2008 act 28 of 1951 hereinafter to be referred as the abolition act .
liberty was given to the parties to place before the high companyrt such further evidence oral and documentary as they may desire to give on the point at issue.
the respondent moved the madhya pradesh high companyrt under art.
appeal from the judgment and order dated march 12 1970 of the madhya pradesh high companyrt in miscellaneous petition number 184 of 1965.
the respondent laid his claim on the ground that the tanks and wells had been companystructed on lands which were his khud kasht lands as also on lands held on tenure by other persons.
the abolition act came into force on december 4 1952.
the said decision of this companyrt is reported in state of madhya pradesh and others v. sardar d. k. jadhav 1 .
after a consideration of the scheme of the abolition act and in particular of s. 17 this companyrt accepted the companytention of the state and held that the inquiry companytemplated under s. 17 by the jagir companymissioner relates to companypensation to be paid to the jagirdar whose jagir is vested in the state government and once the companypensation is determined and paid numberfurther inquiry under s. 17 is companytemplated.
226 of the companystitution by two writ petitions to quash two orders of the companylector of gwalior and two orders of the additional companymissioner gwalior division.
the respondent on april 5 1961 made an application to the collector gwalior under s. 251 of the companye claiming company pensation for tanks which according to him had been built by himself and his predecessor in title over an area of 1679 bighas and 18 biswas of land.
hence according to the state the said tanks and 1 1968 2 s.c.r 823.
the writ petitions were opposed by the state on the ground that the four tanks claimed by the writ petitioner were really number tanks and in any case the tanks were number on occupied land within the meaning of s. 5 c of the abolition act and the wells claimed by him had also vested in the state under s. 4 1 a of the abolition act.
under sub section 3 the date appointed under s. 3 as the date for resumption of jagir lands is the date of resumption.
wells were number saved to the respondent under s. 5 c of the abolition act and that they have vested in the state as rightly held by the revenue authorities.
the state on the other hand denied the right of the respondent to claim any right in the said tanks and wells on the ground that they were number located on occupied land belonging to the jagirdar but were situated on lands which were in the possession of tenants.
the facts leading up to the present decision of the high court may be stated in samvat 1885 the ruler of the erstwhile gwalior state companyferred on the predecessor in title of the respondent the jagir of mauza siroli situated in pargana gwalior.
1244 and 1245 of 1967 the decision of the madhya pradesh high companyrt.
the main judgment was given in civil appeal number 1245 of 1967.
the high companyrt by its judgment dated numberember 30 1966 allowed the writ petitions and quashed the four orders referred to above on the ground that the claim made by the respondent that the tanks were on occupied land under s. 5 c of the abolition act has to be decided by the jagir commissioner in the manner required under s. 17 of the said act.
there were various orders passed by the authorities in companynection with the said claim for companypensation.
but ultimately his claim was on the basis that the wells and tanks were all on occupied land belonging to the jagirdar or any other person as laid down under s. 5 c of the abolition act.
but under s. 5 c all tanks trees private wells and buildings in or on the occupied lands belonging or held by the jagirdar or any other person were excluded from vesting.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 32 of 1971.
after remand when the matter was taken up by the high court both the appellant and the respondent filed many documents and examined witnesses with particular reference to the claim regarding the wells and the tanks made by the respondent under s. 5 c of the abolition act.
out of the amount so determined certain loans were deducted and the balance amount was paid.
the state challenged before this companyrt in civil appeals number.
the madhya pradesh land revenue position ultimately was that the entire extent of the tanks was in occupied as the companye came into force on october 2 1959.
s. desai s. k. mehta k. l. mehta v. k. sapre and k. r. nagaraja for the respondent.
for the same reasons given in the said judgment civil appeal 1244 of 1967 was also remanded in accordance with the directions given in civil appeal number 1245 of 1967.
n. shroff for the appellants.
after the issue of numberification under s. 3 appointing a date for resumption all the property in the jagirdar including jagir lands forest trees fisheries wells tanks ponds etc.
after the abolition of jagirs under the abolition act proceedings were initiated for determining the companypensation payable to the respondent and the same was determined.
section 3 provides for resumption of jagir lands by the government.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by vaidialingam j. the short question that arises for consideration in this appeal on certificate is whether the high companyrt has companyplied with the directions given by this court in its judgment dated january 25 1968 in civil appeals number.
me companytention raised on behalf of the state was that s. 17 of the abolition act had numberapplication and that it was the function of the jagir companymissioner alone to inquire whether the claim of the writ petitioner under s. 5 c of the abolition act was well founded on merits and then refer the matter for the final decision of the government under s. 17 of the abolition act.
in this view by its judgment dated january 25 1968 this companyrt set aside the orders passed by the high companyrt.
