T. K. Thommen, J. - (1.) This appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh arises from the Order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 84 of 1978 quashing order dated 1-10-1977 of the Additional Collector, Gwalior, whereby he initiated proceedings against the 3rd respondent, the Gwalior Dairy Limited (hereinafter called 'the Company u/S. 182(2)(i) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 ('the Code'). Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are shareholders of the third respondent. The High Court by the impugned order held that the Company was not a Government lessee within the meaning of S. 181 (read with S. 2(h) and was, therefore, not liable to be proceeded against in terms of S. 182.
(2.) The order of the Additional Collector Gwalior, which was impugned in the High Court, was made consequent on the failure of the Company to pay the rent agreed upon between the Government and the Company subsequent to the unconditional withdrawal by the Company of its Civil Appeal No. 299 of 1967 which was ending in this Court. That appeal had been brought to this Court by the Company against an earlier judgment of the High Court dated 30-6-1964 in First Appeal No. 1 of 1961 whereby the High Court, confirming the judgment of the trial court and dismissing the Company's appeal, held that the land admeasuring 495.05 acres was held by the Company in terms of the lease granted by the State and the Company was not a pakka-tenant and did not enjoy the status of a "Gair Maurusi" tenant.
(3.) The Company entered into a contract of lease with Gwalior State Government (Sanitary Engineering Department) for a period of one year in Samvat 1999. The lease was extended for a further period of ten years in Samvat 2000. When proceedings were initiated on 16-7-1952 to eject the Company, the Company, filed Suit No. 14 of 1960 for declaration of title and perpetual injunction. Issue No. (1) in that suit was in the following words:- "Whether the plaintiff in accordance with paras 5 and 6 of the plaint was a 'gair maurusi tenant' and now by virtue of the Revenue Administration and Ryotwari Land Revenue and Tenancy Act of Samwat 2007 has become a 'pakka tenant'. If so, what is its effect on the suit - That issue was answered in the negative. The Court held that the company did not enjoy the status of Gair Maurusi tenant and that it had not become a 'pakka' tenant under S. 54(vii) of Part 11 of Act No. 66 of 1950 in respect of the land in question. The Court held that the Company was "a Government lessee u/ S. 181 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 with the rights and liabilities enumerated in S. 182". It was also held that the Company was not an occupancy tenant u /S. 185 of the Code as it had not become an ordinary tenant earlier in Madhya Bharat under Act No. 66 of 1950. This judgment, as stated earlier, was affirmed by the High Court by its judgment dated 30-6-1964 in First Appeal No. 1 of 1961. The High Court observed that the land held by the Company under the lease was neither zamindari nor ryotwari land. The Zamindari Abolition Act did not apply to the land as it had become vested in the State long prior to the Act. The High Court observed:- ".......... the lands comprised in the Gwalior Sewage Farm were never notified to be a Ryotwari village. The lands which have been acquired by the Gwalior State in connection with the Gwalior Sewage Farm could not, after their acquisition for a public purpose be notified to be part of a Ryotwari village..... the lands were not Pandat lands nor were the lands included in Ryotwari village. Special leases granted by the erstwhile Gwalior state in respect of such lands as had been acquired for a public purpose, namely construction of a sewage system were governed not by any law for the time being in force but by the terms of' lease in each case. I have already explained above that to these lands the provisions of the Zamindari Abolition Act did not apply, since they were already held by the state when that came into force the defendant (the State) has been successful in showing that the plaintiff (the Company) never acquired the status of a gair maurusi tenant in respect of the land in dispute at any time prior to the coming into force of the Act No. 66 of 1950 and that he could not, by virtue of the provisions of that Act become a pucca tenant thereof." ;