1987 INSC 0671
                                                    Khuman Singh

                                                           Vs

                                              Dhan Singh and Others

                                          Civil Appeal No. 1181 of 1972

                                            (G. L. Oza, M. H. Kania JJ)

                                                      08.12.1987

                                                        ORDER

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court,
Gwalior Bench, Gwalior dated April 29, 1971.

2. By a petition under Articles 226 and 227 appellant challenged the order passed by the Board of
Revenue, Madhya Pradesh dated March 20, 1969 wherein the Board set aside the orders passed by
the Revenue Commissioner, Bhopal and also of the Tehsildar Basoda, District Vidisha and held that
Survey No. 1230/2 was not khudkasht land of the petitioner, therefore he could not be declared as
pucca krishak, as was done by the Tehsildar by his order dated December 28, 1960.

3. The High Court held that khudkasht in Section 2(c) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition
Act has been defined to be land in the personal cultivation of zamindar and was so recorded before
the date of vesting. It appears that the finding of fact arrived at by the Board of Revenue was that
this Survey No. 1230/2 was not recorded as khudkasht land is Samvat 2006, 2007, and 2008 which
was the relevant period. It has recorded as padti jadeed and this finding of fact as it appears from the
judgment of the High Court was not disputed and this entry of padti jadeed has been rightly
understood by the High Court to mean land which was not under cultivation and therefore it could
not be khudkasht. The High Court, therefore, dismissed the petition upholding the judgment of the
Board of Revenue.

4. Having heard counsel for the appellant at some length, there appears to be on reason to interfere
with the judgment of the High Court as admittedly entry of Khasra No. 1230/2 measuring 36 bighas
and 5 biswas which was recorded as padti jadeed in the revenue records in the Samvat 2006, 2007
and 2008 was a fact which was not disputed before the High Court and in fact it was found by the
Board of Revenue.

5. In this view of the matter the interpretation put by the High Court and the Board of Revenue
could not be assailed. We, therefore, see no merit in this appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant ultimately submitted that if in law the present appellant was
entitled to make an application for allotment of land, he may be permitted to make such application,
which may be considered by the appropriate authorities under the law in force now. It is not
necessary for us to make any observation in this regard as it is clear that if in law the present
appellant makes an application for allotment of land, which has vested in the State, it is for him to
choose and it will be for the authorities to decide after considering such applications in accordance
with law and rules which may be in force now. The same is the situation about respondent 1 who
has been contesting this litigation all through on the ground that he had made an application which
is still pending for consideration.

7. The appeal is, therefore dismissed. The judgment of the Board of Revenue mentioned above is
maintained and the stay order granted earlier stands vacated.

8. Respondent 1 shall be entitled as his cost in this appeal amounting to Rs. 1000 already deposited
by the appellant herein as security in the appeal.

</html