with a view to reopen the earlier order made under s. 40 of the Act, as the earlier order was passed on the basis of the entries found in Tabdil jamabandi of the year 1946 47 and subsequent year,, Respondent 1, Seth Balkishan Nathani, raised a. objection that appellant 2 had numberjurisdiction to initiate the proceedings.
Civil Appeal No.
Thereafter, appellant 2, the Nistar Officer cum Additional Deputy Commissioner Raipur, started proceedings against the respondent for the companyrection of old annual papers in MouzSonpairi.
In Tabdili jamabandi of the year 1946 47 the said lands were recorded as the Occupancy Tenancy Holdings of the said respondents 4 to 6 and respondent 2, Govindlal Nathani, the legal representative of Vashodabai.
274 of 1955 in the High Court to quash the said order.
he executed perpetual pattas in favour of his wife, Vashodabai, since deceased, and respondents 4, 5 and 6 in respect of khudkasht and grass lands of Mouzz Sonpairi.
The number applicants may file other evidence, which they wish to file.
On February 19, 1948, the said Seth Balkishan Nathani executed perpetual pattas in respect of the said lands in favour of the same respondents as in the other appeal.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 8, 1956, of the former High Court of judicature at Nagpur number High Court of Madhya Pradesh at jabalpur in Misc.
1 of Mouza Kachna in Tahsil and District kaipur.
No appeal was preferred against that order.
On March 25, 1952, the Deputy Commissioner, Laid Reforms, acting under S. 40 of the Act, recognized the said Balkishan Nathani as the pattadar and settled the assessment payable by him in respect of Khasra Nos.
Mistakes found in patwari records have been companyrected by me after spot inspection.
Hence the two appeals.
Appellant 2 overruled the objection and made the following order On the next hearing, 5, witnesses may be produced for proving cultivation.
a Kamlabai, b Pana Bai, Yashoda bai, d Chhote Bai of Nathani family.
Ex proprietors 1 Balkishan Nathani and others and 2 Narayanrao made absolutely bogus transfers in favour of their family members, namely, i .
hereupon, the respondents filed the writ petition No.
It will be seen from the said order that the second appellant found that the transfers made by respondent I in favour of the other respondents were bogus and that he also companyrected the entries in the annual papers to the effect that the landlord was number cultivating the lands as recorded in the earlier papers.
Respondent I was the Proprietor and ambardar of the said Mouza.
In the result, it allowed the two writ petitions quashing the proceedings started by the Nistar officer in the case of Mouza Sonpairi and the order dated December 9, 1954, passed by him in the case of Mouza Kachna and prohibiting him from taking further proceedings which may affect the occupancy tenancy rights of the petitioners in the lands in dispute.
22 and 274 of 1955.
II of 1917 , hereinafter called the Land Revenue Act, companyferred a power on the Nistar officer to review orders already made in respect of the factum of cultivation or the occupancy rights recognized under the relevant provisions of the said Acts.
Mistakes discharged discovered by me in Patwari papers have been companyrected.
on December 8, 1954, appellant 2 made an inspection of the said lands and made the following order on December 9, 1954 x x x x X x .lm15 There were found to be obvious mistakes in Government documents Khasra,Jamabandi and Tabdilat.
A Full Bench of the High Court held that neither s. 15 3 of the Act number s. 47 1 of the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917 C. P. Act No.
92 of 1955 and 274 of 1956 filed by respondents 1, 3 to 6 herein in the said companyrt.
The respondents filed writ petition No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The names of the purchasers, to whom the lands have been sold, be obtained from the Patwari, and a numberice be served on them that they should file their statements as well as should bring the sale deeds along with them.
On January 14, 1947.
Sen and I. N. Shroff, for the appellants.
2 to 6.
Thereafter, in due companyrse the estate of the said proprietor was duly numberified under s. 3 of the Act.
28912 and 366/7 of Mouza Sonpairi.
Writ Petitions Nos.
Kamla Bai Chitnavis, wife of Narayanrao, ex proprietor.
January 30.
370 and 371 of 1960.
Respondent 1, Seth Balkishan Nathani, was the proprietor and lambardar of Mouza Sonpairi in Tahsil and District Raipur.
it will be seen from the said order that the second Appellant purported to make an inquiry in regard to he factum of cultivation as well as the validity of he sale deeds whereunder respondent 1 created interests in the other respondents.
Mathur, for respondents Nos.
Hearing fixed for date 4 8 1954.
370 of 1960 may be stated first.
The same entry was found in the jamabandis of the subsequent years The Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Right,, Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands Act, 1956 1 of 1951 , hereinafter called the Act, came into force on January 22, 1951.
These papers be number filed.
Respondent I preferred an appeal from that order to the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, but the same was Dismissed on the ground that it was premature.
Patwari entered names without cultivation and agricultural possession against Land Record Manual, Volume 1.
B. Pai, J. B. Dadachanji, Ravinder Narain and 0.
The facts in Appeal No.
In he annual papers the said lands were recorded as the Occupancy Tenancy Holdings of respondents 2 to 6.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO, J. These two appeals by special leave are filed against the companymon judgment of a Full Bench of the High Court of judicature at Nagpur in writ petitions Nos.
371 of 1960 relates to patti To.
22 of 1955 in the High Court of Madhya pradesh.
