Skip to main content

Followers

11. Poonam Chand (Plaintiff/ Appellant) Vs State of M.P. (Defendant/ Responded)

Sub: This case relates to Section 59 (2) of the MP Land Revenue Code, which has retrospective effect or not, has been decided herein.

 Facts of the case :-

1. The Plaintiff owned an agricultural land measuring 26 acre in the Khasra No. 649/3 at Tahsil Sausar in District Chhindwada of MP.

2. A house was built at this land by diverting a portion of that agricultural land into non agricultural land in the year 1928.

3. The MP Land Revenue Code came into effect from 2 Octo- ber, 1959 and this was clear that the diversion of the said land had already taken place before the MP Land Revenue Code having been operational.

4. Section 59A of the Code has a clear provision that when- ever an assessment is done under this Section, it will be done after this Code being effective.

5. The SDM, in whose jurisdiction the land was situated, had passed an order on 10-3-1964 for a rent of Rs. 63.64 instead of Rs. 48.80 by deeming the conversion of the land after the Code being effective.

6. The Appellant, being aggrieved by the said order of the SDM, preferred an appeal before the District Collector, Chhindwada, which the Collector dismissed on 5-8-1964

7. The Appellant filed a second appeal before the Additional Commissioner against the order of the District Collector. The Additional Commissioner also dismissed it on 29-6-1965.

8. The Appellant filed a revision petition against the said or- der of the Additional Commissioner and raised the following contentions---

1. There is no dispute in this regard that the land was diverted in the year of 1928. Therefore, Section 59 (2) of this Code will not apply to the instant matter because the rent may be amended on the diversion of the land after the provisions of this Section of the Code being effective. Therefore, the order passed by the SDM is in- valid and liable to be set aside.

II. None of the Courts below has taken note of this fact that MP Land Revenue Code has become effective from 2 October 1959. Therefore, it is unlawful to make amend- ment in the rent on the basis of the changes having been made before the effective date of the provisions of the Code.

Judgment: The Court has decided that it is clear from the language of Section 59 (2) of the Code that there may be amendment in the assessment of the rent only when the changes have taken place in the land after the Code being effective because in the present case, the changes were made in the land the before Code being effective, There- fore, Section 59 (2) will not apply in this matter. In such a condition the Authority has no right to make amendment in the assessment of the rent. So, the orders of the SDM and Collector and order of the Additional Commissioner confirming the order of the SDM are liable to be dis- missed. The revision petition deserves to be allowed.

Law points:-

1. Section 59 (2) of the MP Land Revenue Code applies only in a case where an agricultural land is converted into a non agricultural land.

2. The provisions of Section 59 (2) will apply to a land only when such conversion had taken place after 2 October 1959

3. The provisions of any law become effective from the date of the commencement of that law, not before that, i.e. a law has no retrospective effect.

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

चिल्ड्रन डे की ढ़ेरों बधाईयां

  मेरे प्यारे नन्हें बच्चों!   पहले, मैं सभी बच्चों को इस दिन की बहुत-बहुत शुभकामनाएँ देना चाहता हूँ। आप सभी इस दुनिया का सबसे अनमोल हिस्सा हैं। आपके शिक्षक उम्र और तजुर्बे में आपसे काफी बड़े है, बढ़ती उम्र उनके माथे में अनायास सिकन लाती है l दुनियाभर की बेमतलब जिम्मेदारियों के बोझ में शिक्षक को सुकून तब मिलता है जब आपका मुस्कुराता हुआ चेहरा सामने आता है l आपको शायद अभी इसका अहसास न हो, लेकिन इस बात में कोई दो राय नहीं है कि आप सभी उस ईश्वर/भगवान या उस अलौकिक परमतत्व के प्रतिरूप है l  चिल्ड्रन डे, जो कि हमारे प्रिय पंडित जवाहरलाल नेहरू के जन्मदिन पर मनाया जाता है, हमें यह याद दिलाता है कि बच्चों का भविष्य हमारे समाज का भविष्य है। नेहरू जी ने हमेशा बच्चों के विकास और शिक्षा को प्राथमिकता दी। उन्होंने कहा था कि "बच्चे हमारे भविष्य हैं," और यही कारण है कि हमें उन्हें प्यार, देखभाल और सही दिशा में मार्गदर्शन देना चाहिए। आज का दिन सिर्फ उत्सव मनाने के लिए नहीं हैं, बल्कि हमें यह भी सोचना है कि हम बच्चों को कैसे एक सुरक्षित, खुशहाल और समृद्ध जीवन दे सकते हैं। हमें बच्चों क...

भारत का सर्वोच्च न्यायालय

  संगठन चार्ट प्रधान सचिव रजिस्ट्रार (न्यायिक सूचीकरण) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार / एआर-सह-पीएस शाखा अधिकारी/कोर्ट मास्टर व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी रजिस्ट्रार (न्यायिक प्रशासन) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार शाखा अधिकारी व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी रजिस्ट्रार (खरीद एवं भंडार) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार शाखा अधिकारी व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी रजिस्ट्रार-I (गोपनीय कक्ष) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार शाखा अधिकारी व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी रजिस्ट्रार (न्यायाधीश प्रशासन एवं अंतर्राष्ट्रीय संबंध) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार शाखा अधिकारी व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी रजिस्ट्रार (प्रौद्योगिकी) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार(कंप्यूटर) शाखा अधिकारी व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी/ तकनीक. सहायक-सह-प्रोग्रामर रजिस्ट्रार-II (गोपनीय कक्ष) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार शाखा अधिकारी व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी रजिस्ट्रार (न्यायालय एवं भवन) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप...

1. B.Shah vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, AIR 1978 SC 12

 Ref : AIR 1978 SC 12 Sub :- This case is based on Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 Facts of the case:- 1. A woman by the name of Sulbamal worked in an industry named Mount Stuart Estate which was related to planta- tion. 2. Sulbamal gave an application for maternity leave. The estimated period for delivery was 16-12-1967 and she deliv- ered the child on this very date. 3. Maternity benefit was given by way of salary for 72 work- ing days by the employer to the woman workman, but in this period Sunday being the holiday, was excluded by the employer. 4. Thus, being dissatisfied with the amount so provided, she filed an application before the employer in this regard. 5. It was demanded by the woman workman that she should be given full benefit of 12 weeks under the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 which is of full 84 days, not of 72 days because Sunday is also included in it. 6. But, she was denied of the payment of full 84 days by the employer. Trial Court...