# STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS v. SETH BALKISHAN NATHANI & ORS

- **Citation:** [1964] 1 S.C.R. 793
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1964
- **Bench:** K. SUBBA·RAo, Raghubar Dayal, J. R. MuDHOLKAR
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-v-seth-balkishan-nathani-ors-2814
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

Land Reform-Execution of perpet«al patta and entrie8
in the subsequent Revenue R'cords-Recoynition as Pattadar and
oettlement of asoessments
by
Deputy Commissioner
Land
Refor11i11-Ni8tar Officer correcting records and reopening orders
of the Deputy Commissioner-Jurisdiction-The Madhya f'_radeoh
Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals,
Alienated
:Lands) Act, 1950 (Madhya Pradesh 1of1951), ••· 3 (2), 4 (2),
13 (1), 15 (1), 40-The Central Provinces Land Revenue
Act, 1947 (C. P. Act II of 1947) ss. 45 (1) (2) (4), 46,
47 (1) (2).
Respondent No. I in both the appeals was the proprietor
and lambardar of two Mouzas.
He executed perpetual l'attas
in favour of the other respondents.
With regard to one of the
Mouzas in the subsequent annual papers the 1{ouza was recorded
as occupanry Tenancy Holding of respondents 2 and 4 to 6.
Similar recordings were made with regard to the other Mouza
in the names of respondents 2 to 6. Thereafter the Madhya
Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals,
Alienated Lands) Act, 1950, came into force and under s. 3 of
the Act the estate of resp,ndent 1 was notified.
The Deputy
Commissioner Land Reforms acting under s. 40 of the Act
recognised respondent as the pattadar and settled the assess·
ment payable by him in respect of the first of the Mouzas.
Subsequently the Nistar Officer started
proceedings for
correction of old annual papers with a view to reopen the
earlier order made under s. 40. Respondent No. I raised an
objection that he had no jurisdiction tu do so which objection
was rejected. The appeal filed by the respondent before the
Revenue Board was also rejected.
With regard to the other
Mouza the Nistar Officer made an order that the transfers made
by respondent I was bogus and that the landlord was not cultivating the land. The respondents then filed writ petitions in
the High Court against the said two orders of the Nistar Officer.
The High Court held that the Nistar Officer had no power
either Ul'ldcr s. 15
(3)
of the Act or under s. 47 (I)
1963
January, 30.
1963
St.alt of Matihyo
Pratftih
v.
S11h BalkiJhan
JVathani
S•bbo n .. , J,
794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964) VOL.
of the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917. The prcaent
appeals are by way of special leave.
It was c.cntendec! before th i• CotJrt 1 hat (I) under s. 4 7 ( 1)
of the Land Rev<nue Act th• '.llistar Offcer had jurisdiction to
correct cntri~ made for earlier years in a subsequent year on
the ground of mistake and (2) the said officer has also jurisdiction to review under s. 15 (3) of the Act the order made by
him under s. 40 thereof.
Held, that neither s. 13 nor s. 15 (3) has any relevance
in the context of an order made by the Deputy Commissioner
under s. 40 thereof.
Section 47 (1) of the C,,ntral Provinces Land Revenue
Act does not cover a case of correction of the entries on the
ground of :mistake.
Mang/oo v. Board of R<ven?U, I. L. R. 1954 Nag. 143,
!lpproved.
Nistar Officer has no jurisdictivn to correct the entries
with a view to reopen the matter already closed under s. 40 of
the Act.
CIVIL APPELLATE Jc;RISDICTION : Civil Appeals
Nos. 370 and 371 of 1960.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment
and order dated March 8, 1956, of the former High
Court of Judica:ure at Nagpur (now High Court of
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur) in Misc. Writ Petitions
Nos. 22 and 274 of l95fi.
B. Sen and J. N. Shroff, for the appellants.
G. B. Pai, .J. B. Dadi1chanji, Ravinder Narain
and 0. C. Mathur, for respondents Nos. 2 to 6.
1963. January 30. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
S UllBA. RAo. ].-These two appeals by special
leave are filed against the common judgment of a
,.
: ..
(.
.•
·.
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
795
Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at
Nagpur .in writ petitions Nos. :!2 of 1955 and 274 of
1955 filed by respondents 1, 3 to 6 herein in the 1aid
court.
1963
Sta11 of Mad/i}
Pralhsh
. v.
Sith Balkishan
.Nat/umi
The facts in Appeal No. 370 of 1960 may be
.
stated first.
Respondent

## Text

l S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
793
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
v.
SETH BALKISHAN NATHAN! & ORS.
(K. SUBBA·RAo, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, and
J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.)
Land Reform-Execution of perpet«al patta and entrie8
in the subsequent Revenue R'cords-Recoynition as Pattadar and
oettlement of asoessments
by
Deputy Commissioner
Land
Refor11i11-Ni8tar Officer correcting records and reopening orders
of the Deputy Commissioner-Jurisdiction-The Madhya f'_radeoh
Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals,
Alienated
:Lands) Act, 1950 (Madhya Pradesh 1of1951), ••· 3 (2), 4 (2),
13 (1), 15 (1), 40-The Central Provinces Land Revenue
Act, 1947 (C. P. Act II of 1947) ss. 45 (1) (2) (4), 46,
47 (1) (2).
Respondent No. I in both the appeals was the proprietor
and lambardar of two Mouzas.
He executed perpetual l'attas
in favour of the other respondents.
With regard to one of the
Mouzas in the subsequent annual papers the 1{ouza was recorded
as occupanry Tenancy Holding of respondents 2 and 4 to 6.
Similar recordings were made with regard to the other Mouza
in the names of respondents 2 to 6. Thereafter the Madhya
Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals,
Alienated Lands) Act, 1950, came into force and under s. 3 of
the Act the estate of resp,ndent 1 was notified.
The Deputy
Commissioner Land Reforms acting under s. 40 of the Act
recognised respondent as the pattadar and settled the assess·
ment payable by him in respect of the first of the Mouzas.
Subsequently the Nistar Officer started
proceedings for
correction of old annual papers with a view to reopen the
earlier order made under s. 40. Respondent No. I raised an
objection that he had no jurisdiction tu do so which objection
was rejected. The appeal filed by the respondent before the
Revenue Board was also rejected.
With regard to the other
Mouza the Nistar Officer made an order that the transfers made
by respondent I was bogus and that the landlord was not cultivating the land. The respondents then filed writ petitions in
the High Court against the said two orders of the Nistar Officer.
The High Court held that the Nistar Officer had no power
either Ul'ldcr s. 15
(3)
of the Act or under s. 47 (I)
1963
January, 30.
1963
St.alt of Matihyo
Pratftih
v.
S11h BalkiJhan
JVathani
S•bbo n .. , J,
794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964) VOL.
of the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917. The prcaent
appeals are by way of special leave.
It was c.cntendec! before th i• CotJrt 1 hat (I) under s. 4 7 ( 1)
of the Land Rev<nue Act th• '.llistar Offcer had jurisdiction to
correct cntri~ made for earlier years in a subsequent year on
the ground of mistake and (2) the said officer has also jurisdiction to review under s. 15 (3) of the Act the order made by
him under s. 40 thereof.
Held, that neither s. 13 nor s. 15 (3) has any relevance
in the context of an order made by the Deputy Commissioner
under s. 40 thereof.
Section 47 (1) of the C,,ntral Provinces Land Revenue
Act does not cover a case of correction of the entries on the
ground of :mistake.
Mang/oo v. Board of R<ven?U, I. L. R. 1954 Nag. 143,
!lpproved.
Nistar Officer has no jurisdictivn to correct the entries
with a view to reopen the matter already closed under s. 40 of
the Act.
CIVIL APPELLATE Jc;RISDICTION : Civil Appeals
Nos. 370 and 371 of 1960.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment
and order dated March 8, 1956, of the former High
Court of Judica:ure at Nagpur (now High Court of
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur) in Misc. Writ Petitions
Nos. 22 and 274 of l95fi.
B. Sen and J. N. Shroff, for the appellants.
G. B. Pai, .J. B. Dadi1chanji, Ravinder Narain
and 0. C. Mathur, for respondents Nos. 2 to 6.
1963. January 30. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
S UllBA. RAo. ].-These two appeals by special
leave are filed against the common judgment of a
,.
: ..
(.
.•
·.
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
795
Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at
Nagpur .in writ petitions Nos. :!2 of 1955 and 274 of
1955 filed by respondents 1, 3 to 6 herein in the 1aid
court.
1963
Sta11 of Mad/i}
Pralhsh
. v.
Sith Balkishan
.Nat/umi
The facts in Appeal No. 370 of 1960 may be
.
stated first.
Respondent 1, Seth Balkishan Nathani,
Subba Raa,
11•
was the proprietor and lambardar of Mouza Sonpairi
in Tahsil and District Raipur. On January 14, 1947,
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 Mouza
Sonpairi. In TabdiliJamabandi 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. The same entry was
found in the Jamabandis of the ·subsequent years.
The Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights
(Estates, Mahals, Alienated
Lands)
Act, 1950
(1 of 1951), hereinafter called the Act, came into
force on January 22, 1951. Thereafter, in due course
the estate· of the said proprietor was du! y notified
under&· 3 of the Act. On March 25; 1952, the
Deputy Commissioner, Land 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. 289/2 and
366/7 of Mouza Sonpairi. No appeal was preferred
against that order. Thereafter, appellant 2, the
Nistar Officer cum Additional Deputy Commissioner,
Raipur, started proceedings against the respondents
for the correction of old annual papers in Mouza
Sonp:iiri, 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 Tabdili
Jamabandi of the year 1946-47 and subsequent years.
Respondent 1, Seth Balkishan Nathani, raised an
objection that appellant 2 had no jurisdiction to
initiate the proceedings. Appellant 2 overruled the
/Hi3
SUll •I M.a!t1o
Pr°"111
••
S11AB~
N•IMM
SdHllM, J.
796 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
objection and made the following order :
"On the next hearing, 5 witnesses may be
prvduced for proving cultivation. The names
of the purchasers, to whom the lands have been
sold, be obtained from the Patwari, and a
notice be served on them that they should
file their statements as well as should bring
the sale·deeds along with them. Hearing fixed
for date 4-8-1954. The non-applicants may
file other evidence, which they wish to file."
It will be seen from the said order that the second
appellant purported to make an inquiry in regard to
the factum of cultivation as well as the validity of
the sale-deeds
whcreunder
respondent l created
interests in the other respondents. Respondent l
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.
Thereupon, the respondents filed the writ petition
No. 22 of 1955 in the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh.
Civil Appeal No. 371 of 1960 relates to patti
No. l of Mouza Kachna in Tahsil and District
Raipur. Respondent l was the Proprietor
and
Lambardar of the said Mouza. On February 19,
1948, the said Seth Balk.ishan
Nathani executed
perpetual pattas in respect of the said lands in favour
of the same respondents as in the other appeal. In
the annual papers the said lands were recorded as the
Occupancy Tenancy Holdings of respondents 2 to 6.
On December 8, 1954,
appellant 2 made an
inspection of the said lands and made the following
order on Decembt:r 9, 1954:
"
x
ll
ll
][
x
2.
There were foupd to be obvious mistakes
in
Government
documents-Khaara,
Jamabandi
and
TabdilGI.
MiatakCI
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
797
discharged (discovered) by me in Patwari
papers have been corrected.
3.
Ex-proprietors (1) Balkishan Nathani and
others and (2) Narayanrao made absolutely
bogus transfers in favour of their family
members, namely,
(i). (a) Kam)abai,
(b) Pana Bai,
(c) Yashoda bai, (d) Chhote Bai
of Nathani family.
(ii) Kamla Bai Chitnavis, wife of
Narayanrao, ex-proprietor.
Patwari entered names without cultivation
and agricultural pos~essicin against Land
Record Manual, Volume 1.
4.
Mistakes found in patwari records have
been corrected by me after spot inspection.
These papers be now filed."
·
It "ill be sei-n from the said order that the second
appellant found that the transfers made by respondent 1 in favour"of the other respondents were bogus
and that he also corrected the entries in the annual
papers to the effect that the landlord was not cuJti;
vating the lands as recorded in the earlier papers.
The respondents filed writ petition No. 274 of 1955
in the High Cqurt to quash the said .order.
A Full
Bench of the High Court held that neither s. 15 (3)
of the Act nor s. 4 7 (I) of the Central Provinces Land
Revenue Act, 1917 (C. P. Act No. II of 1917), hereinafter called the Land Revenue Act, conferred a
power on the Nistar Officer to review ordt>n already
made in respect of the factum of cultivation or the
occupancy rights _ recognized under the relevant
provisions of the said Acts. In the result, it allowed
1963
Stal• of Madhya
Prad,,h
v.
Sith Balkishan
.Nathani
Sllbbo Rao, J
1933
S"'11 of M•d/IJ•
Pradesh
v.
S.IJa Bollishon
.Na1/umi
Subba Roo, J.
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1964) VOL.
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.
Hence the
two appeals.
Mr. Sen, learned counsel for the appellants,
raised before us the following two points: (I) Under
s. 4 7 ( l) of the Land Revenue Act, the Nistar Officer
has jurisdiction to correct entries made for. earlier
years in a subsequent year on the ground of mistake ;
and (2) the said officer has also jurisdiction to review
under s. 15 (3) of the Act the order made by hiw
under s. 40 thereof.
Mr. Pai, learned counsel for the respondents,
argued at the outset that the appeals have abated for
two reasons, namely, (1) the second petitioner died
after the arguments were heard by the High Court
and before the judgment was
delivered and the
petition filed by the appellants to set aside abatement was dismissed, and (2) the second respondent
in the appeals died on March 7, 1956 and the
applicaAin filed on June 28, 1957, to set aside the
abatement and to bring his legal representatives on
record was out of rime.
On the merits. he sought to
sustain the jud~ment of the High Court for the
reasons mentioned therein.
As we are inclined to agree with the view
expres.~ed by the High Court on the two questions
raised by the learned couruel for the appellants, we
do not propose to consider the preliminary objection
raised by the learned counsel for the respondenu.
The two qurstions raised in this case ue in a
way iuter.related and the answer to them dependi
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
799
upon the construction of the relevant sections of the
Act and the Land Revenue Act. It would be convenient to read the relevant provisions.
The Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights, (Estates, Mahals, Alie- --
11ated Lands) Act, 1950 (Act 1 of 1951).
Section 3. (2) After the issue of a notification
under sub-section (1), no right shall be acquired
in or over land to which the said notification
relatts, except by succession or under a grant
or contract in writing made or entered into by
or on behalf of the State : and no fresh clearings for cultivation or for any other purpose
shall be made in such land except in ;:iccordance with such rules as may be made by the
State Government in this behalf.
-
Section 4. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (I), the proprietor shall
continue to retain the possession of his homestead, homefarm land, and in the Central
Provinces also of land brought under cultivation by him aft~r the agricultural year 1948-49
but before the date of vesting.
Section 13. (1) On receipt of the statement of
claim, or if no such claim is received within the
prescribed period, the Compensation Officer
shall, after making such enquiry as he thinks
tit and giving an opportunity to the claimant
to be heard, decide the amount of compensation
due to the claimant and record in a statement
in the prescribed form, the details of the land -
which shall vest in the State Government after
its acquisition in lieu of the payment of such
compensation and such other details as may be
prescribed.
-·
19/iJ
Stat1 of Ma<ihJ•
Prad1sh
••
Se1h Balkislum
Ndthani
Subba R@, J.
' :. '
j
!
'):
I
. -800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
" ....
~ '
1963
State cf Madlf.y'J
Prad•sh
v.
Seth Balkirhon
; Jtlu.thani
Suhl• Ra1J, J.
·-'
Section 15. (I) Any peison:~·aggneved by the
decision given ·or the record· made under
section. 13 by the. Compensation Officer may
appeal to the Deputy Commissioner .•.•..••...•.•.
x
.X
x
x.
x
x
(3) The Compensation Officer, the Deputy
Commissioner or the Settlement Commis-
.L_ sioner, may, either on his own motion or
.on the application filed within the prescribed period by any · party inter!!•ted, ·
review an · order passed by him~clf or his
predecessors · in . office and pass such order
in reference thereto as he thinks fit.
-.
x
x
.X
. X
x
x
Sectibn · 40. (as ainenaei on 'October 22, 1951).
{I) ·Any hind not included in home-farm
· - but brought under cultivation by the
proprietor · after · the ., agricultural
year IIJ48-49 shall be held by him in
. the rights of.an occupancy t_enant.
(2) Any person becoming an- occupancy
tenant under rule I shall be a tenant
of the State.
·-,
· (3) The
Deputy . ·Commissioner . · shali
· I determine' the rent On. the land and it
: ; shall be payable from the date of the
.vesting of the proprietary rights,
Section'. 84. Except where the ·provision· of
this Act provide otherwise,· from every decision
or order of a Revenue Officer·. under this Act
or the rules made· thereunder, ·an . appeal shall
lie as if such decision or order has •been passed ··-
1 S.C,R.
SUPREME COURT REPOllTS
sen
by such officer under the Central Province
Land Revenue Act, 1917, or the Berar Land
Revenue Code, 1928, as the case may be. ·
The Central Provinces Land Reve11ue Act, 19.17.
Section 45. (1) A record-of-rights
for each
mahal or estate shall be prepared or revised,
as the case may be, by the Settlement Officer
at settlement and, for such mahals or <;states as
the Provincial Government may direct, by a
Revenue Officer empowered by the Provincial
Government in that behalf during the currency
of a settlement.
(l!) The record-of-rights of a mahal shall
consi11t of the following documents :-
(a) Khewat
or statement . of
persons
possessing proprietary rights in the
mahal, including inferior proprietors
or lessees or 'mortgagees in possession,
specifying the nature and extent of
the interest of each ;
(b) Khasra or field-book, in which shall
be entered the names of all persons
cultivating or occupying land, the
right in which it is held, and the rent,
if any payable ;
(c) J amabandi or list of persons
cultivating or occupying land
in the
village ;
x
x
x
x
x
( 4) The documents specified in sub.section (2) shall be prepared in such form and
shall contain such additional particu Jars as may
be prescribed by rules made under 11ection 227.
196J
Slol• of Modlf1a
''"""'
v.
Sfl,\ Bllli<UAllll
J(alllanl
s.6H RM, J,
'IHI
Sllllt •/ M'41f1•
l'todtU.
••
&-I.I &l.IUAa
Nol,_.
, ... a..1.
802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
'
~eCti01l 46.
On the application or any pcnon
mterested therein or of his own motion, the
Deputy Commissioner may, without prejudice
to other provisions of this Act, modify any
entry in the record-of-rights on one or more of
the following grounds :-
(a) that all persons interested in such
entry wish to have it modified; or
(b) that by a decree in a civil suit it has
been declared to be erroneous; or
(c) that, being founded on a decree or
order of a Civil Court or on the order
of a Revenue Officer, it is not in
accordanr.e with such decree or order;
or
x
x
x
x
x
8ecti01l 47.
(I) 1 The Deputy Commissioner
ahall cause to be prepared, in accordance with
rules made under section 227, for each Mahal
annually or at such longer intervals as may be
prescribed, an amended set of the documents
mentioned
in
section 45,
sub-section (2),
clausea (b), (c) and (d), and the documents so
prepared shall be called the "annual μapen".
(2) The Deputy Commissioner shall cause
to be recorded, in accordance with rules made
under si:ction 221; all charges that have taken
place in respect of. and all transactions that
1
have affected, any of the proprietary rights and
interests in any land.
x
x
x
x
x
x
The scheme of the Act so far as it is relevant to the
present enqμiry may be summariied thus : On the
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
803
issue of a notification by the State Government
under s. 3 of the Act in respect of an estate, all proprietary rights in such estate vest in the State. The
Compensation Officer, on a claim made by the proprietor, after making the enquiry prescribed under
the said Act, decides the amount of compensation
due to him and the details of the land that vests in
the State. But the Act saves some interests in the
proprietor from its total operation : one of such is
lands in the Central
Provinces brought
under
cultivation by the proprietor after the agricultural
year 1948-49, but before the date of the vesting:
(sees. 4 (2) of the Act).
Under s. 40 (1) of the Act, such a land shall be
held by him in the rights of an occupancy tenant;
under sub-s. (2) thereof he becomes a tenant of the
State; and under sub-s. (3) the Deputy Commissioner
shall determine the rent on the land and it shall be
payable from the date of the vesting of the proprietary rights.
Section 84 confers ·a right of appeal on
an aggrieved party against the order of the Deputy
Commissioner to the prescribed authority. There is
no provision in the Act which authorizes the Deputy
Commissioner to review an order made by him under
the said sub-section and, therefore, an order made by
him, subject to appeal, becomes final. It is, therefore, manifest that the order made by the Deputy
Commissioner in respect of lands in question determining the rent on the basis that the . proprietor was
an occupancy tenant had become final. If so, the
Nistar Officer, i. e., the second appellant, had no
jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for reopening the
order made in respect of Mouza Sonpairi or in
making the order reviewing the earlier order made by
him in respect of Mouza Kachna, for the said orders
had become final and there is no provision under the
Act for reviewing them. , But the learned counsel for
the appellants contends thats. 15 (3) of the- Act
confers such a power. Under s. 15 (3) of the Act, the
Stat• of Madhy,
Pradesh
v.
Seth Balkifhan
Naihant
Subba Rao, J.
/Y6J
SIOu of M..U.,.
P.-adnh
..
s.u. s.u;,,,.,,
:Na "=i
804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
a~thority concerned can review an order made by
him under s. 13 of the Act.
Section 13 of the Act
deals with. ~n or<l::r made by the Compensation
Officer ~ec1dmg the amount of compensation due to
the c~a1mant and recording in a statement in the
prescnbed form the details of the land which shall
vest in the State. Neither s. 13 nar s. 15 (3) has any
relevance in the context of an order made by the
Deputy Commissioner under s. 40 of the Act.
This conclusion would be sufficient to dispose
of the appeals.
But, as an argument was made on
the construction of s. 4 7 (I) of the Land Revenue Act
and as the ~ame was considered by the High Court,
we shall also deal with it.
The argument based upon the said provision
is relevant more to the nature of the evidence avail·
able to the Drputy Commissioner to come to a
decision under s. 40 of the Act than to the validity or
the finality of the order made by him thereunder.
The question that a Deputv Commissioner has to
decide by necessary implication under s. 40 of the
Act is whether the proprietor has cultivated the land
after the al!"l"icultural year 11148.49 and before the
vesting of the estate in the State. One of the most
in·,,orta.nt pieces of evidence that will be available
to him is the annual papers prepared under s. 47 of
the Land Revenue Act. It is not disputed that in
the annual papers prepared earlier it was shown that
the proprietor was cultivatin~ the lands in question
after Hl48-49. But it is said that under s. 47 (I),
the Deputy Cnmmissioner can correct the said entry
in the year 1952 and 19.54 as he purports to do, so as
to make the entry to the effect that between 1949 and
the date of the investigation the proprietor was not
in cultivation of the land. This argument, if we
may say so, is contrary to the scope and ten.or of the
relevant provisions nf the' Land Revenue Act and the
rules made thereunder. Under ss. 45, 46 and 47 the
I S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
S05
proyisions whereof we
have
extracted earlier,
the
procedure
prescribed is · as
follom : A
record-of-rights shall consist of Khewat, Khasra,
J amabandi 11nd other papers; and they are prepared in the manner prescribed by the rule1·made
under s. 227. On the application of any penon
interested therein or of his own motion, ·the Deputy
Commissioner
may modify any entry
in the
rcwrd·of-rights on specified
grounds, namely, that
all persons interested in su(,,h entry wish to.have it
modified, that by a decree in a civil suit it has been
dee Jared to be erroneous, that, being founded on a
decree or order of a civil court or on the order of a
Revenue Officer, it is not in accordance with 1uch
decree or order, and that being so founded, such
decree or order has subsequently been varied on
appeal, revision or review. It will be seen that a
mistake in a Khasra or J amabandi of an earlier year
in regard to the factum of cultivation by a particular
person is not a ground for modification under 1. · 46
of the Land Revenue Act.
Section 47 empowers the
Deputy Commissioner to caμse to be prepared annually or at such longer intervals as may be prescribed,
an amended set of the documents mentioned in
els. (b), (c) and (d) of sub-s. (2) of s. 45 of
the Land Revenue Act, and the documents so prepared shall be called the "annual papers". The
rules made under s. 227 of the Land Revenue Act
are found in Ch. III of the Central Provinces Land
Records Manual, Vol. l, pp. 13-16.
The rules
relevant to the preparation of Khasra and Jamabandi
direct the Patwari to record such changes annually as
he finds to have taken place after local enquiry and
actual inspection. It is, therefore clear that a recordof-rights consists of Khewat, Khasra, Jami'.bandi etc.
and till it is revised again it will hold the field. The
entries therein can be modified only for the grounds
·mentioned in s. 46 of the Land Revenue Act. The
Provisions of s. 47, if contrasted with those of s. 46,
make it clear that the said section intends to bring
1168
Stat1 of Ma/Y•
Pr.Us~
v.
l1tA Ball.ult,..
Nt111tatri
S11U• ltM, /.
1963
St4J1 of Modh:fo
p,Olf1.•A
••
S11A Baikuh!zn
.Nathani
806
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1946] VOL.
the said documents up·to.date by
recording the
subsequent changes ·based on supervening events.
The scope of the annual papers is only to record the
existing facts on the basis of spot inspe_ction at the
beginning of a fasli and to record changes occurring
during the coune of the year after the year is closed.
It is not the province of the annual papers to investigate and decide on the correctness of otherwise of
the entries made in the earlier annual papers as on
the date they were made.
The said section came under judicial scrutiny
of a Division Bench of the I\agpur High Court in
.Mangloo v. JJuard of Revenue('). The facts in that
case were that on the death of one Gaindoo who was
a tenant of mouza :Vlatia, on an application made by
his nephew and his widow, their names were entered
in the annual papers as joint tenants of the land by
the A~sistant Superintendent of Land Records; thereafter, the widow applied to the Superintendent of
Land Records for striking off the petitioner's name
from the annual papers ?.nd her application was
allowed ; in appeal, the Additional Deputy Commissioner declined t'J interfere on the ground that the
initial order of the A~istant Superintendent of Land
Records was passed by him in his executive capacity
and as such the Superintendent of Land Records
was competent to modify it in his own executive
capacity; the second appeal preferred to the Board
of Revenue was summarily ~ejected; and it was contended befor<' the High Court that the decision of
the Board of Revenue contravened the provisions of
s. 47(1), read withs. 33(2)(c) of the Central Provinces
Land Revenue Act, 1917. In that context, the
learned judges of the High Court considered the
scope ofs. 47(1) of the Land Revenue Act and the
rules made under s. 2~7 of the said Act, and observed
thus:
"As we read section 47(1) of the Act and the
rules governing it, we are of opinion that thesr
(1) J.L.R. 195l Nag. 143, 1%.
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
807
proviliona deal only with the preparation of
the annual papers and not with their correction
if the entries are found to be erroneous.
They
arc only enabling provisions which import no
restriction on the power of the Revenue Officers
to correct the mistakes or remove any irregularities, committed in the preparation of the
anuu'lll papers. Neither the annual papers nor
the corrected entries affect any questiom of
title or vested interest of any party. The
power of the Revenue Officeci in this regard
is analogous to the untrammelled right of a
person to correct his private documents, which
cannot be questioned in a Court of law by
any one whose right or interest is not affected
thereby."
The
learned counsel
contends
that the
said
passage comprises conflicting ideas inconsistent with
each other-the first part of it denying a right to
correct the entries and the second part permitting
such corrections. We cannot accept this interpretation of the passage. The learned Judges were dealing with two aspects of the question: one is the scope
of the preparation of the annual papers and the other
is whether correction of mistakes therein give a cause
of action to the person aggrieved. The first they
answered by stating that s. 47(1) of the Land Revenue
Act .and the rules made under the said Act deal only
with the preparation of the annual papers and not
with their corrections if the entries are found to be
erroneous and the other with the right of a party
affected by the correction of the mistakes therein.
The observations made in regard to the scope of
s. 4 7( l) are made clear by the discussion found earlier
in the judgment at p. 145. After adverting to the
provisions of s. 4 7 and the rules made under the Act
governing the preparation of annual papers, learned
Judges observed:
"This would normally be done in the beginning
1961
Stot1 of MadAy•
Pradesh
..
Selh BalkisMh
.Nathatti
1963
St.11 ef Ma4/rya
Pr..Us/a
v.
Stlli BaJkishati
J{aJ/wti
Sob.fl., I.
808
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
of the agricultural year which, under s. 2(1)
of the Act, commences on the first day of June.
No changes in the entries are contemplated
during the course of the agricultural year and
the changes taking place during that period are
obviously to be recorded after the year is closed.
The action taken by the
Superintendent of
Land Records and ratified by the Additional
Deputy Commissioner has, therefore, no reference to the preparation of the annual papers
under s. 4 7( I) of the Act and we are not shown
any other provision of law which govems it."
The Division Bench held that there was no provision
for correcting the wrong entries made in the annual
papers, for their scope is very limited.
This view
was followed by the Full Bench of the High Court
in their Judgment which is now under appeal. The
Full Bench confirmed the view of the Division Bench
in, the following words :
" ............... Section 4 7 (1) of the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act contemplates entering
only such changes in the annual papers as take
place during the course of the agricultural year.
That section, therefore, does not cover a case
of correction of the entries on the ground of
mistake."
We entirely agree with this view.
It follows that
the Nistar Officer has no jurisdiction to correct the
said entries with a view to reopen the matter already
closed under s. 40 of the Act. We, therefore, agree
with the conclu!ion arrived at by the High Court.
In the result, the appeals fail and are dismissed
with costs.
One set of hearing fees.
Appwla dismiased.