Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal on Fishing Rights Dispute — Upholds High Court's Ruling Against Customary Rights. The court ruled that the Dhimars of Ramtek cannot claim fishing rights in the Mathurasagar tank by way of lost grant or custom, as such rights cannot be presumed in favor of an indefinite body of persons.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose between the Barai community, proprietors of certain tanks in Mathurasagar, and the Dhimar fishing community regarding fishing rights. The Barais owned five artificial tanks used for irrigation and fishing, with arrangements recorded in the Wajib-ul-arz since 1862. The Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1951, extinguished the rights of Malguzars but recognized certain rights for the Barais. In 1954, the Dhimars filed a suit for an injunction against the Barais to restrain them from fishing in the tanks. The trial court ruled in favor of the Dhimars, affirming their right to fish based on long uninterrupted use. However, the High Court reversed this decision, stating that the Dhimars could not claim rights as a fluctuating body of persons. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's ruling, emphasizing that rights cannot be claimed by an indefinite group and that the doctrine of lost grant does not apply to such cases. The court also directed that fishing rights be auctioned to avoid economic instability between the communities. The appeal was dismissed with no costs.

Headnote

A) Property Law - Fishing Rights - Customary Rights and Lost Grant - The Supreme Court held that the Dhimars of Ramtek cannot claim fishing rights in the Mathurasagar tank by way of lost grant or custom, as such rights cannot be presumed in favor of an indefinite body of persons. The court emphasized that a customary right must be ancient, certain, and reasonable, and cannot be claimed by a fluctuating body of persons (C.P. Land Revenue Act, 1906, Section Not mentioned) (Paras 1-8).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Dhimars of Ramtek can claim fishing rights in the Mathurasagar tank by way of lost grant or custom.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's ruling that the Dhimars cannot claim fishing rights in the Mathurasagar tank by way of lost grant or custom. The court directed that fishing rights be auctioned to the highest bidder and that mesne profits continue until the auction occurs.

Law Points

  • Doctrine of lost grant
  • Profit-a-prendre
  • Customary rights
  • Statutory recognition
  • Wajib-ul-arz
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2002 LawText (SC) (11) 41

Appeal (civil) 1170 of 1980, Appeal (civil) 645 of 1981

2002-11-12

Umesh C. Banerjee, Y.K. Sabharwal

Uday Umesh Lalit, Mr. Bobde

Tulsi Ram & Ors., The Proprietors of Mathura Sagar Bareja

Mathura Sagar Pan Tatha Krishi & Anr., Tulsiram & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Dispute over fishing rights in Mathurasagar tank between two communities.

Remedy Sought

The Dhimars sought an injunction against the Barais to restrain them from fishing.

Filing Reason

The Dhimars claimed rights based on long-standing usage.

Previous Decisions

The trial court ruled in favor of the Dhimars, but the High Court reversed this decision.

Issues

Whether the Dhimars can claim fishing rights by way of lost grant. Whether customary rights can be claimed by an indefinite body of persons.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellants argued that the Wajib-ul-arz recognized their rights as a definite body of persons. The respondents contended that rights cannot be claimed by a fluctuating body of persons.

Ratio Decidendi

Rights cannot be claimed by an indefinite body of persons; the doctrine of lost grant does not apply to customary rights claimed by fluctuating communities.

Judgment Excerpts

The doctrine of lost grant gives no firmer basis for the appellants’ case. The right of fishing in the suit tanks is being enjoyed by the Dhimars uninterruptedly for over 100 years. The defendants Dhimars of Ramtek cannot claim this right to fish in the Mathurasagar tank either by way of a lost grant or by way of custom.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs filed a suit in 1954, which was withdrawn and refiled in 1963. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, which was upheld by the District Judge. The High Court reversed the decision, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court.

Acts & Sections

  • C.P. Land Revenue Act:
  • Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court uphold conviction of appellant in Murder Case Under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 Due to complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence -- Conviction uphold as to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Default Bail in UAPA Case: Exclusive Jurisdiction of Special Court for Extension of Investigation Period. The right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC accrues upon expiry of 90 days and is not defeated by subsequent filing...