Skip to main content


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.



Popular posts from this blog

Important Topics for Semester Exam in Environmental Law useful for LL.B Students.

  1.           State facts and the principles of law laid down in the case of Monera Mandal Sahkari Shakkar Karkhana Society vs M.P. Board of Prevention of Water Pollution, 1993 M.P.L.J.270.   2.            Power to take samples of effluents and procedure to be followed in connection therewith under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 3.            Discuss the various provisions Indian Constitution concerning Environmental Protection. What are the main features of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 and the provisions of penalties and procedure for violation of provisions, rules, orders and instructions. 4.            Describe the special provisions in the case of supersession of the Central Board or the State Board constituted under the Water (prevention and control of pollution) Act, 1974. Explain in brief about the provisions regarding appeal and revision under this Act. 5.            Explain the objects and main provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollut

1. A. Mackenzie vs. J S Izzak, AIR 1970 SC 1906

Ref : AIR 1970 SC 1906 Sub :- This case is based on Section 2 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. Facts of the case :- 1. S.S. Dwarka is a ship whose owner is The British India Stream Navigation Limited and Mackenzie was its agent. 2. Shaikh Ibrahim Hasan was a class II seaman on this ship and who was missing from the ship. 3. It was clear from the medical log book that he had a chest pain on 13 December 1961 and he was suffering from it. 4. It was known from the medical checkup that nothing was unusual and medical officer gave him medicines and con- firmed his recovery and joining back on his duty next day. 5. It was known from the log book of the office on 16 Decem- ber 1961 that he was on the ship that day and he was seen on the bridge at 2:50 in the morning. 6. He was found missing at 6:15 in the morning. The master of the ship informed on the radio message at 7:30 in the morning that a seaman is missing between Khoramsar and Asahar and he is likely to be missing in the river.