Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 625 (MP)

Dhiraj Singh v. State of M. P.

2002-07-04

S.S.JHA

body2002
JUDGMENT Appellant is convicted for an offence under section 3(l)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 (here-in-after referred to as the Act). According to the prosecution Girdhari, father of Tularam was village chowkidar of village Khejda. After Girdhari, Appellant Dheeraj Singh was appointed as village chowkidar by the tehsildar. The order of appointment of Dheeraj Singh was set aside by Sub Divisional Officer and Tularam being son of Girdhari was appointed as Chowkidar. 20 Bigha service land is allotted to Village Chowkidar. Tularam received possession of 3.971 hectares land in the capacity of Village Chowkidar on 25.5.1994 from Dheeraj Singh Ex-chowkidar. On 28.9.1996 when Tularam went to cultivate the land, he found appellant cultivating the service land delievered to him in his possession. On his objection accused abused him and said that he will cultivate the land. Complainant loged FIR in Police Station Satpada. The complaint was registered as Crime No. 125 by Scheduled Caste Welfare Police Station. Offence under section 3(1) (v) of the Act is levied against the appellant. Counsel for the appellant produced the documents that order of Sub-Divisional Officer has been given and parties were directed to maintain status-quo vide order dated 16.9.1994 by the order of Additional Commissioner Bhopal, Division, Bhopal. From bare perusal of the provisions of section 3(1)(v) of the Act it is apparent that if a member of Scheduled Caste is wrongfully dispossessed from his land or premises then the provision is attracted. Counsel for the appellant submitted that disputed land is a service land and did not belong to complainant Tularam, who is a member of Scheduled Caste. However, from the provision of sub-section (v) it is clear that this provision is also attracted in the case of interference with the enjoyment of rights over any land premises or water. Thus, if right to cultivate is acquired by a member of scheduled caste over any agricultural land then on his dispossession provision of section 3(1)(v) will be attracted. Only question involved in the case is whether Tularam was forcibly dispossessed. According to the prosecution after removal of Girdhari as chowkidar Dheeraj Singh was appointed as Village Chowkidar and on his appointment the possession of service land was delivered to him. There is nothing on record to show that after appointment of Tularam as Village Chowkidar possession of land was delivered to Tularam by Dheeraj Singh. According to the prosecution after removal of Girdhari as chowkidar Dheeraj Singh was appointed as Village Chowkidar and on his appointment the possession of service land was delivered to him. There is nothing on record to show that after appointment of Tularam as Village Chowkidar possession of land was delivered to Tularam by Dheeraj Singh. It is also not disputed that dispute regarding appointment is going on and the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer is challenged in the appeal incase No. 346/Appeal/93-94 before Additional Commissioner Bhopal Division Bhopal. Section 183 of M.P. Land Revenue Code relates to service land. It provides that any person holding land on the condition of rendering service as village servant shall cease to be entitled to such land if he diverts such land to non-agricultural purposes. Sub-section (3) of· section 183 provides that if the holder of such land dies, resigns or is lawfully dismissed the land shall pass to his successor in office. Section further provides that right of the holder in such land shall not be attached or sold in execution of a decree nor shall a receiver be appointed to manage· such land under section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, land is liable to be handed over to the successor in the event of the death, resignation or dismissal of the holder. In the present case Dheeraj Singh has not been dismissed, but his appointment as Chowkidar was set aside by the appellate authority and in the second appeal order of status-quo is passed. In the said facts of the case, it is apparent that the dispute relates to the appointment on the post of chowkidar and possession over the land in pursuance of holding the post. Prosecution has failed to prove that after the order of cancellation of appointment of pheeraj Singh as Chowkidar possession of the land was delivered to new appointed Chowkidar Tularam. It is true that under section 183 appellant Dheeraj Singh has ceased to hold the land on his removal. But, mere seizure to hold land will not be sufficient to infer that Tularam was forcibly dispossessed, unless prosecution establishes that possession of the land was delivered to Tularam by appellant Dheeraj Singh. It is true that under section 183 appellant Dheeraj Singh has ceased to hold the land on his removal. But, mere seizure to hold land will not be sufficient to infer that Tularam was forcibly dispossessed, unless prosecution establishes that possession of the land was delivered to Tularam by appellant Dheeraj Singh. On the said facts and on failure of prosecution to prove that Tularam at relevant time was in possession of the disputed land and was forcibly dispossessing by the appellant; conviction of appellant under section 3(l)(v) cannot be maintained. In the result conviction and sentence of appellant for an offence under section 3(1)(v) of the Act is set aside. Appeal succeeds and allowed. Amount of fine if deposited be refunded to the appellant. Bail bond and surety of the appellant are discharged.