The Rediff Special
'We had lost the case in three courts,
there was no point losing again'
Ramesh Menon
Part 3
Part 2
The case generated a lot of interest.
Ramji Sharma, the lawyer for the Madhya Pradesh Seed and Farm
Development Corporation, remembers that
he became a celebrity of sorts in
legal circles.
Sharma had argued in court that both
General Girdhari Singh and Major
General Yadunath Singh were
"non-residents" and had not taken possession
of the land in person. And they never
cultivated it.
He also pointed out that the naib
tehsildar, colonisation, had no jurisdiction to
lease the land; so the lease itself was
null and void.
But the court ruled that since the
lease had the collector's approval, it was valid.
The petitioners thus won the case. The
Chanderi civil court said as the
Farm Development Corporation had
developed the land, it could keep it.
But the government would have to
provide another plot to Sushila Singh
and Mala Anand. Or compensate them in
cash.
At that stage the petitioners had not
asked for money. They just wanted
the land.
The court also held that the
government's confiscation was illegal, as
it had not informed the petitioners
before taking over the land.
But there was evidence of how Sushila
Singh had been informed of the
take-over. She had also acknowledged
the notification. She had written
back saying she needed a couple of
weeks to settle the tax dues.
Secondly, there was proof that the land
was not cultivated. Which
vindicated the government take-over.
But the court chose to believe
Brijendra Singh, who said he had
cultivated the land.
When rediff.com pointed out to
Idrees Khan Pathan, the
advocate
for the petitioners, that only wild
grass grew on the land, that it had
not been worked on, he replied that
even growing grass amounted to
cultivation in the eyes of the law.
THE Farm Development
Corporation appealed
against the
judgment in the court of the additional
district judge in Mungawali. The
earlier judgment was upheld. This took
14 months.
The corporation then approached the
Gwalior high court. The court
ordered that as it was an old case it
should be disposed off within six
months.
The appeal was filed on January 12,
1998. The judgment came within two
months, by mid-March.
Again, the lower court's judgment was
upheld.
The high court quoted two documents,
which it said was proof of revenue
paid.
The order sheet, which details the
orders passed by the revenue court,
shows that when the tehsildar started
proceedings for the
confiscation of the land under section
176 of the Madhya Pradesh Land
Revenue Code in 1965, Brijendra Singh
was present.
Sushila Singh had said she had handed
over the land to Brijendra Singh
to cultivate. The order sheet records
him as saying that he would give
the notice of the land take-over to
Sushila Singh, who was then living
in Morar, near Gwalior. It also shows
that a registered letter was sent
to her, to which she replied.
Mala Anand was not available for
comment. rediff.com was told
that neither she nor any other family
member would speak to the media.
All along, it was the Farm Development
Corporation that fought the
battle. It filed a special leave
petition on July 13, 1998 in the
Supreme Court. That was in the process
of getting admitted, but was
withdrawn on August 18, 1998 by the
Digvijay Singh government.
The Corporation officials were
surprised. The government had a strong
case and they were hoping the Supreme
Court would reverse the earlier
judgments.
MADHYA Pradesh Chief
Minister Digvijay Singh told
rediff.com he had taken the decision
after consulting
his legal officers. They, he said, were
of the view that the state
government did not have a case.
"We had lost in three different courts
and there was no point in losing
in the fourth one," he said.
The state government has now offered a
smaller plot to the complainants.
It cannot give the whole 114 acres, as
that would violate the Rural
Ceiling Act. In lieu of the rest, it is
ready to provide cash. A
proposal to this effect has been sent.
After the special leave petition
challenging the earlier judgments was
withdrawn by the state government, the
petitioners demanded Rs 1.24 crore
(Rs 12.4 million) as
compensation. Even Brijendra Singh
admits the land is worth only Rs
3,000 to Rs 5,000 an acre. Even if you
take the rate at Rs 20,000 an
acre, the compensation for the 114
acres would be only Rs 22,80,000.
Why, then, do the petitioners ask for
Rs 12.4 million?
Part 4: The government flip-flops
Back to The Tangled Plot
