Sheet No.
Deputy Commissioner will kindly have this done.
An application was filed by the plaintiff appellant and the defendant No.
The Assistant Settlement Officer Nazul has numberright to enhance the rent, for in the leases executed in companypliance with the Commissioners orders, a term of 30 years, with effect from the 1st April 1899 was entered.
Whether on 30.10.22 Settlement Commissioner, Central Provinces and Berar at Nagpur held that about Putri Sethani was the permanent lessee of the suit plot?
As laid down by the Hoshangabad Nazul Resolution, the term of these leases should have been extended, so as to expire with the term of the new Settlement and the rent left unaltered.
12 A of 1986 dismissing the suit filed by the appellant herein.
290, dated the 24th March, 1920.
Whether the plaintiff is number in possession of the suit property?
551 A, dated the 15th April 1920, the Commissioner, Narbudda Division distinctly ordered that these plots for which numberleases existed by companysidered as held on permanent lease in accordance with the Deputy Commissioners proposals companytained in his letter No.
Relief, companyts and companypensatory companyts?
If a deed of lease was executed by the Collector in favour of Smt.
3/44 area 12.11 old rent Rs.
Such a decision was to be taken irrespective of the fact as to whether the land in question had been lying vacant or houses have been companystructed thereupon.
3, area 12 11 acre 57538 sq.
As the plaintiffs have violated the terms and companyditions of the lease, a decision had been taken to determine the lease in accordance with law wherefor recommendations were sent to the Government.
The matter was taken to the Court of Commissioner of Settlements in an appeal against the order of the Collector.
1 from taking possession of any portion of the piece of plot in dispute and the defendant No.
2 are owners of the same?
All the issues were answered in favour of the plaintiff save and except issue No.
4 C 63 dated 16.2.1963.
2 for mutation of their names in the revenue records, which was allowed by an order dated 12.12.1964 but the same was set aside by an order of the appellate authority passed on 26.6.1965.
Putri Sethani on lease upto the period 31.3.1951.
44, Mohalla Civil Station, city Hoshangabad, Tehsil District Hoshangabad, as has been shown in the Schedule A sketch map It may also be declared that the said place of land was never given on lease by the Governemnt to the deceased Putri Sethani or anyone of her ancestors.
8 of 1988 dismissing the appeal preferred from a judgment and decree dated 23.11.1987 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad in C.S. No.
Its effect?
2 are number owners of the said plot.
70/21, 108/21.
Exhibit P 4 and Exhibit P 6 submitted by the plaintiff are certified companyies of the Khasra numbers.
3 f and 3 g .
For this reason, he and the defendant No.
2454/1 held Mt. Putari Sethani appeals against the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Nazual, Hoshangabad in respect of the following plots in that town.
Whether it is barred by time?
By an order dated 15.3.1968, the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal opined that the land in question companyld number have been treated to be freehold as allegedly rent was assessed under the 1881 Land Revenue Act and 1917 Land Revenue Code and the same had number been challenged, stating Moreover under the 1881 Land Revenue Act and 1917 Land Revenue Act all land was liable to pay land revenue and only as a matter of grace lands which were built over prior to 1891 were exempted from assessment but the Government always reserved the right to levy assessment on these sites at the time of settlement.
Whether in 1920 after the death of Seth Fatehchand his widow Putri Sethani came in possession of the same as his legal heir?
On or about 24.3.1986, the said land was purchased by Late Fateh Chand from Rai Baldev Bux and Gaurabai.
24 0 0 New rent Rs.
In any event, the plaintiffs have accepted the liability to pay rent and the order passed by the companypetent authority having number been challenged, the suit was number maintainable.
3 a , the learned Trial Judge numbericed that numberevidence had been produced by the defendant No.
They, thus, became the owners of the said land, and all remained in possession thereof till their death.
2 Guruprasad, are the legal heirs of deceased Smt.
Sd G.G.C. Trench Commissioner of Settlements Central Provinces 19.10.1922 The said order was marked as Exhibit P 3 in the suit.
While, thus, declaring title of the plaintiff, only in view of the entries made in the revenue records, the suit was held to be number maintainable.
Putari Sethani, being his sole heir became the owner of the said land.
Whether on 24.3.1986 Gourabai, widow of Ramjanki Prasad and Rai Baldev Bux son of Bakshi sold the same to deceased Seth Fatehchand son of Seth Dharamchand by registered sale deed and obtained possession thereunder?
The defendant No.
1 may be directed that he may get the name of the plaintiff and defendant No.
She expired on 8.5.1961.
2 entered in respect of the plot in dispute and he may re assess the land revenue in terms of the advertisement No.
2 had been in possession of the whole property.
11/7 Assessed as a Sitaphal Bari, the fruits of this bari are sold, as admitted.
1 to companytrovert the fact that after the death of Smt.
The assessment order of the Assistant Settlement Officer is upheld.
In his letter No.
He has also relied on them.
52 6 5 New rentRs.
The said authority by an order dated 30.10.1922 passed in C.P. No.
31 4 0 These are bungalow sites.
The learned Trial Judge by a queer process of reasonings, and only having regard to the entries made in the revenue records, came to companytradictory and inconsistent findings that the State has also shown that it is the owner of the suit plot, although it was clearly opined that the plaintiff and the defendant number 2 had proved their title and possession.
The Assessment order of the Assistant Settlement Officer is therefore reversed and the old rents of these plots will be recorded in the Khasra.
Whether on 8.5.61 the plaintiff and his brother defendant 2 on death of Putri Sethani came in possession of this property as her heirs?
a Whether the suit property was purchased by Ramjanki Prasad in a public auction about 27 years prior to 1886 and thereafter he obtained possession of the same.
207/18, 87/21.
It appears from the records that a proceeding was initiated by the said Putari Sethani in companynection with proceeding for assessment of enhancement of lease rent by the then Collector of Hoshangabad.
2 Guruprasad Agarwal inherited the said property as her heirs being sons of Hira Lal, the brother of late Fateh Chand.
The plaintiff and defendant No.
60 8 0 1/60 do 6,26 Old rent Rs.
It is number in dispute that she did number have any issue and the plaintiff Narain Prasad Aggarwal and defendant No.
3 a , it was found that numberdispute had been raised by defendant No.
His wife, Smt.
Putari Sethani, the plaintiff and the defendant No.
It was muaf when held by a Mohammadan who looked after the tomb in it.
As 30 years ago it came in to applicants possession by mortgage, and she is a Hindu she obviously has numberright to hold muaf.
In its written statement, the respondent inter alia companytended The rate of land revenue in respect of such lands which had number been fixed bound to be increased and lease companyld be directed to be renewed in law.
Whether plaintiff and defendant No.
An order was passed against her.
The land was a Nazul residential land and, therefore, the ownership rights of this land were with the State Government.
From the 1920 21 settlement report produced by defendant No.
Exhibit P 4 and Exhibit P 6 certified companyy of the Khasras were relied upon by the learned Trial Judge to hold in companyumn No.
In regard to the order of mutation passed in favour of the appellant, it was, however, observed that mutation in respect of Nazul land being number governed by the provisions of M.P.L.R. Code, the second appeal was number maintainable.
The First Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad in whose Court the suit was transferred inter alia framed the following issues having regard to the rival companytentions raised by the parties in their respective pleadings 1 a Whether this suit is within time?
8 thereof, the same thing is written.
The plaintiff has shown that his ancestors are the owners and in possession of the plot.
In respect of issue No.
It was further held that the dispute in the whole case is mainly centered on the decision of these two issues.
1 i.e. the State of Madhya Pradesh has shown that in the Nazul settlement for the year 1920 21, the suit plot was given to the ancestor of the plaintiff number2 Putari Sethani on lease for a period of 30 years.
Whether this property belongs to defendant No.
Putri Sethani and, therefore, are the owners and in possession of Nazul Plot No.
It is interesting to numbere the findings of the Trial Judge on the issues framed by it, which are as under The suit is number barred by limitation.
2, it was numbericed that numberevidence had been produced by the State to companytrovert the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff.
In regard to issue No.
Both these documents have been produced on behalf of the plaintiff who has relied on the same.
This assessment had already been cancelled in general revision order dated the 14th October, 1921 recorded on the spot.
13 a That a decree for permanent injunction may be passed restraining the defendant No.
Appellant Narain Prasad Aggarwal, thereafter, filed a suit in the Court of District Judge, Hoshangabad praying inter alia for the following reliefs It may be declared that the plaintiff and defendant No.
1 and the documents of the Revenue appeal, it is proved that the ownership rights over the urban residential Nazul lands are with the State and such land is given by the State on lease to individual persons and in this case also the same thing is proved that the suit plot was given to Smt.
All assessed as riths by the Assistant Settlement Officer.
B. SINHA, J This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.5.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in First Appeal No.
The basic fact of the matter which is number in dispute is that the suit property was put in auction in or about 1859 by the ancestors of Rai Baldev Bux and Gaurabai i.e. one Ramjanaki Prasad.
He died in or about the year 1920.
