# [1971] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 407

- **Citation:** [1971] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 407
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1971-04-20
- **Bench:** S. M. Sikri, G. K. MiTrER, K. S. Hegde, A. N. Grovb!I, P. Jaganmohan Reddy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1971-supp-1-s-c-r-407-5259
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Madhya Pradsh Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1952, JJ. 3 and
4-Eviction can be only from
Governmenr· premises-Former ruler oJ
Indian State claiming certain properties to be hi• private property-Acceptance of hi~ claim in respect of some of these propertieJ does not mean
that the properties in respect of which the claim ha.t not been accepttd
become property of Government.
The ruler of the erstwhile State of Jhabua granted jagirs to N and R.
The Jagirs were forfeited in 1943.
On March 30, 1948 tho Ruler mado
sn order purporting to declare a large number of immovable properties,
including certain houses in the occupation of N and R as his private properties. 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 Engi·
neer 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 res·
pecfjveiy 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 tho writ petitions filed by N's successors-in·
interest and by R and quashed the orders of eviction against them. The
State of Madhya Pra~esh appealed.
HELD: The appeal must be dismissed·
407
B
c
D
E
F
The evidence showed that some only of the properties set forth in
the declaration of April, I, 1948 and claimed by the Ruler as private
property "were accepted as such" by tho Government of Madhya Bharat:
there was no finding with regard to the others that they appertained to
G
the Ruler as distinct from his private properties. In order to succeed tho
appellant had to show that the properties had been confiscated by tho Ex·
ruler and bad ceased to belona to N aild R. [4101!-GJ.
As the properties originally belonaed to N and R there mnst be some
~idence 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 conliscation. It wu not
H
proved that tho ownership of the properties bad passed to the Ruler and
thereafter fint to tho State of Madhya Bharat and then to tho State of
Madhya Pratlelb. [4.lOO,.JQ.
SUPREME COURT RBPORTS
[1971] SUPP. s.c.R.
.l
In order to enable Go•,.rol!ieilt to take ptoceedings successfully under
either s. 3 or 4 of the Act, it must satisfy the Court that the premises iD
respect whereof action was taken was Government premises. As the State
failed to establish thlS fliet. thCS question of eviction under the Act could
never arise. [411B].
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1164
Ji
and 1165 of 1967.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated December l, 1965
of the Madhya Pradesh. High Court, Indore Bench in Misc. Petition Nos. 18 and 19 of 1%4.
·
M. S. K. Sastri, M. N. Shroff for I. N. Shroff, for the appelC
!ant (in both the appeali.).
E
F
G
H
B. R. L. Iyengar, R. A. Gupta and K. B. Rohatgi, for the
respondent (in C. As. No. 1164 of 1967).
P. C. Bhartari, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur and Ravinder
Narain, for the respondent (in C. A. No. 1165 of 1967).
The 1 udgment of the Court was delivered by
Mitter, J~
The St1te 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

## Text

STATE OF MADRY.<\ PRADESH
11.
SHIV KUNWARBAI ETC.
April 20, 1971.
[S. M. SIKRI, C. J., G. K. MiTrER, K. S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVB!I.
AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.]
Madhya Pradsh Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1952, JJ. 3 and
4-Eviction can be only from
Governmenr· premises-Former ruler oJ
Indian State claiming certain properties to be hi• private property-Acceptance of hi~ claim in respect of some of these propertieJ does not mean
that the properties in respect of which the claim ha.t not been accepttd
become property of Government.
The ruler of the erstwhile State of Jhabua granted jagirs to N and R.
The Jagirs were forfeited in 1943.
On March 30, 1948 tho Ruler mado
sn order purporting to declare a large number of immovable properties,
including certain houses in the occupation of N and R as his private properties. 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 Engi·
neer 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 res·
pecfjveiy 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 tho writ petitions filed by N's successors-in·
interest and by R and quashed the orders of eviction against them. The
State of Madhya Pra~esh appealed.
HELD: The appeal must be dismissed·
407
B
c
D
E
F
The evidence showed that some only of the properties set forth in
the declaration of April, I, 1948 and claimed by the Ruler as private
property "were accepted as such" by tho Government of Madhya Bharat:
there was no finding with regard to the others that they appertained to
G
the Ruler as distinct from his private properties. In order to succeed tho
appellant had to show that the properties had been confiscated by tho Ex·
ruler and bad ceased to belona to N aild R. [4101!-GJ.
As the properties originally belonaed to N and R there mnst be some
~idence 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 conliscation. It wu not
H
proved that tho ownership of the properties bad passed to the Ruler and
thereafter fint to tho State of Madhya Bharat and then to tho State of
Madhya Pratlelb. [4.lOO,.JQ.
SUPREME COURT RBPORTS
[1971] SUPP. s.c.R.
.l
In order to enable Go•,.rol!ieilt to take ptoceedings successfully under
either s. 3 or 4 of the Act, it must satisfy the Court that the premises iD
respect whereof action was taken was Government premises. As the State
failed to establish thlS fliet. thCS question of eviction under the Act could
never arise. [411B].
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1164
Ji
and 1165 of 1967.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated December l, 1965
of the Madhya Pradesh. High Court, Indore Bench in Misc. Petition Nos. 18 and 19 of 1%4.
·
M. S. K. Sastri, M. N. Shroff for I. N. Shroff, for the appelC
!ant (in both the appeali.).
E
F
G
H
B. R. L. Iyengar, R. A. Gupta and K. B. Rohatgi, for the
respondent (in C. As. No. 1164 of 1967).
P. C. Bhartari, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur and Ravinder
Narain, for the respondent (in C. A. No. 1165 of 1967).
The 1 udgment of the Court was delivered by
Mitter, J~
The St1te 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 Govemmen 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 Collegi: Marg.
According to the Writ Petition
filed in the High Court the acquisition was out of her private funds.
This was not however admitted in the return to the petition. The
successor of the forme:r Ruler Dilipsingh purported to forfeit the
jagir in the year 1943
The order of forfeiture is not on record
but is sought to be heme out by an order dated !st April, 1948,
evidently made in anticipation of the merger of the State in the
Union of Madhya ~harat 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. I 00 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 civil list because such types of 11llowances etc.
are paid from it. But now as new arrangements arc being
ll. p, STA11 v. KUNWARBAI (Mitfer,J.)
409
made regarding Ilic states of Malwa: arid tliere is li'.keliA
hood of reduction in the percentage of the civil list, therefore, the aforesaid montJily allowance shall henceforth be
paid to you every month from State Treasury from· generation to generation.
You may reside i'n the two big houses of Khasgi durB
ing 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 imll!ovable properties as
C
1hc private property of the Ruler and the rulmg 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 NavraD'
tanbai".
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
E
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
F
·excepting the properties in the enclosed list. The relevant list for
the Ruler of Jhabua did not include the properties occupied either
by Hapu 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
G
.amendment of the inventory submitted by the said Ruler: No steps
cappear to have been taken to evict Navratanbai from the said premises in her lifetime.
On 30th April 1962 the Executive Engi·
ncer 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.
ti
1164 of 1967 from the two propertle4 formerly. belong~ to Navnitanbai before the Sub Divisional Offieer, .Ttia'bwi, eonstitufed the
·competent authority under the Act.
An order of eviction made
410
SUPRBMI! COURT REPORTS
[1971] SUPP. s.c.ll.
B
c
D
E
F
G
B
by the Sub Divisional Olli1;er 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. ll64/ 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 so:n Ramsingh by his 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 l, 1948 affected Ramsingh as it
~id 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 tre11ted 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 propt~rties 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 appelJan t 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 l, 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
14. p, STATE'· ICUNWAl!.BAI (Mitter, /.)
same.
The declaration 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 Navratanbai after the passing of the said order of 1948 nothing was done thereafter to show
that she lost her interest in the properties or that the same passed
to the Union of Madhya Bharat and from the said Union to the
State of Madhya Pradesh. When attempts are made to deprive
a person of his lawful inheritanee it must be shown by irreprochable 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
the 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 competent
authority under the Act to order inter alia that the person in unauhorised, occul\llt'ion of any Governmll!lt 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 tb.e result, the appeals are dismissed with costs.
411
A
B
c
D
E
G.C.
Appeals dismissed.
F