Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
1. In this plaintiff's second appeal, the substantial question of law involved, formulated and to be answered is as under: -
Whether in view of the admission of the respondent that the disputed tank, which is subject matter of the suit, vested in the State and thereafter it
was settled with Mukund Singh under Section 5(e) of the M.P. Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, the provisions of Section 251(1) of the M.P. Land
Revenue Code could not be applied for claiming that this tank had vested in the State Government again?
2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the order of the Sub- Divisional Officer, Mungeli dated 20-3-1966 passed in Revenue Case No.288-A-
71 year 1962-63 vesting the land in favour of the Government under Section 251(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, 'the
Code') vide Ex.P-9 is void and ineffective.
3. The defendant State filed written statement stating inter alia that the suit tank and area connected with it and paithu were settled in favour of
Mukund Singh, father of the appellant, under Section 5(f) of the Chhattisgarh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act,
1950 (for short, 'the Act of 1950') and lands were recorded in his name in the revenue records and ultimately, under Section 251(1) of the Code, it was
vested in the State by order dated 6th April, 1959.
4. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the order of vesting dated 20-3- 1966 is in
accordance with law, as it was passed after giving opportunity of hearing and after noticing the appellant, as such, the order is valid, effective and final
between the parties. The first appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed upholding the judgment & decree of the trial Court. In second appeal
preferred by the appellant / plaintiff, question of law has been formulated which has been set-out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.
5. Mr. Aman Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant / plaintiff, submits that concurrent finding recorded by the two Courts below is
perverse and contrary to the record and both the Courts below have failed to consider Section 5(f) of the Act of 1950, therefore, Section 251(1) of the
Code was not applicable and the suit tank could not be vested under Section 251 of the Code. The suit land has already been settled in favour of ex-
malgujar / plaintiff's father and therefore it cannot be vested again under the provisions of Section 251 of the Code relying upon the decision of  the
Supreme Court in the matter of Sub-Divisional Officer, Mandla v. Pirma Gond 1969 MPLJ 713.
6. Mr. Arun Sao, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment & decree of both the Courts below.
7. The question is, whether after vesting of the disputed tank in favour of the State and settling the same in the name of the appellant's father -
Mukund Singh, the suit land can be re-vested with the State under Section 251 of the Code.
8. In Sub-Divisional Officer, Mandla (supra), Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that the tank having once vested in the State,
there was no question of another vesting taking place under Section 251 of the Code of 1959.
9. In the matter of Seth Rishabhkumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others 1970 MPLJ 202, the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court
negativing the argument of ex-proprietor that tank could not vest in the State under Section 251 of the Code of 1959, while explaining the earlier
decision held as under:-
4. ... After the abolition of proprietary rights, certain tanks remained with the ex-proprietors over which the village community had rights of irrigation
or Nistar which created certain difficulties. It was with a view to take over such tanks from the ex-proprietors that Section 251 of the M.P. Land
Revenue Code was enacted ... we are of the view that the petitioner is not correct in saying that the tank in question had vested in the State and that it
could not come within the purview of Section 251 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. Once the petitioner admits that the tank was saved for him under
Section 5(f) of the Abolition Act, he cannot avoid the vesting of the tank in the State under the provisions of Section 251 of the M.P. Land Revenue
Code.
10. The correctness of the decision rendered in Seth Rishabh Kumar (supra) was doubted by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court
in light of two earlier decisions reported in 1969 MPLJ Note No.110 and 1962 MPLJ Note No.86 and ultimately, the Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh
High Court in the matter of Raghubar Singh Padumlal v. State of M.P. and others 1971 M.P.L.J. 594, considered and approved the reasoning adopted
by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Seth Rishabh Kumar (supra) and held in paragraph 19 as under:-
19. In our opinion, the case of Seth Rishabh Kumar v. State of M.P.(supra) properly expresses the effect of vesting under Section 3 and Section 4(1)
(a) of the M.P. Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950, and Section 251 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959.
11. The Full Bench also considered the effect of decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sub-Divisional Officer, Mandla v. Pirma
Gond (supra) and distinguished the same by observing as under:-
24. The case of Prima Gond v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Mandla M.P.No.339 of 1963 decided on the 6th March, 1964 was a case governed by Section
5(g) of the M.P. Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950. The tank had been settled with the ex-proprietor in Malik- Makbuza right. Thereafter the
Collector, Mandla passed an order stating that the tank vested in the State under Section 251(1) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. In that case
the annual papers indicated that the tank had vested in the State upon commencement of the Abolition Act and the same was being dealt with
accordingly. The tank was ordered to be settled with the ex-proprietor, who had been cultivating Singharas. The Division Bench, following the view in
Thakur Ramranjan Singh v. State of M. P. 1961 M.P.L.J. Note No.110 quashed the notice issued by the Revenue Officer.
This case went to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.446 of 1966 and their Lordships affirmed the view of the High Court by judgment, dated
10.03.1969. We may observe that a case under Section 5(g) of the M. P. Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950, would stand on a different footing
Section 251 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, does not at all affect the tanks in which right to grow Singharas may have been in existence. The
said section only affects the tanks situated on unoccupied land in which the villagers have right of irrigation or right of Nistar. Evidently, the right of
Nistar will not include the right to cultivate the bed of the tank or to grow Singharas. The right of Nistar would mean the right to take water for
drinking or for other use as also right of cattle to use water for that purpose. In this view, the case of Sub-Divisional officer, Mandla v. Prima Gond
(supra), decided by the Supreme Court, is clearly distinguishable. But, we have no hesitation in expressing our opinion that the cases of Thakur
Ramranjan Singh v. State of M.P. (supra) and Rajaram v. State of M. P.6 were decided on a misapprehension of the scope of Sections 3, 4 and 5 of
the M. P. Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950, and Section 251 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, and as such, they did not lay down the
law correctly. For this reason, we would overrule those cases and we would adopt the reasoning of the subsequent Division Bench in Seth Rishabh
Kumar v. State of M. P. (supra) and we would approve of the same. We need not pronounce any opinion about the case of Sub-Divisional Officer,
Mandla v. Prima Gond (supra) as the case is distinguishable.
12. Ultimately the Full Bench held as under:-
5. In this view of the matter, we have no doubt that the tanks recorded ad Khasra Nos. 461 and 542, in which the villagers had right of Nistar,
namely, bathing and taking water for use, the tanks were rightly settled in favour of the petitioner under Section 5(f) of the M.P. Abolition of
Proprietary Rights Act, 1950. As such, these tanks were saved to him under the Abolition Act. But, they were rightly held to have vested in the State
under Section 251 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959.
13. Thus, in light of law laid down by the Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court to the facts of the case it is quite vivid that the suit tank was
though settled in favour of ex-proprietor/plaintiffs under Section 5(f) of the Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950, Â the said tank was rightly
vested in State under Section 251 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959.
14. In view of the above-stated legal position, the substantial question of law is answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant / State.
Thus, as a result of the aforesaid discussion, the second appeal as framed and filed is dismissed affirming the decree of the first appellate Court. No
order as to cost(s).
15. A decree be drawn-up accordingly.