The Chhattisgarh High Court has delivered a significant judgment clarifying the legal status of service lands granted to Kotwars (traditional village watchmen) prior to the abolition of proprietary rights. A Full Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that such lands cannot be recognized or converted into Bhumiswami (ownership) rights in favour of Kotwars or their legal heirs.
The ruling resolves conflicting judicial opinions that had emerged from earlier Division Bench decisions regarding whether service lands allotted to Kotwars could be treated as ownership property under the M.P./C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and the M.P. Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950.
The dispute arose from petitions filed by successors of former Kotwars who sought recognition of ownership rights over lands historically granted for the performance of village service duties. The petitioners argued that earlier judicial precedents supported the conversion of such service lands into Bhumiswami rights.
After examining the statutory framework governing service lands and village servants, the Full Bench concluded that Kotwars were granted land solely in consideration of services rendered to the village administration. Such grants were never intended to create proprietary ownership and remained subject to statutory service conditions.
The Court observed that the abolition of proprietary rights did not automatically transform service lands into private ownership holdings. Consequently, neither the original Kotwars nor their successors can claim Bhumiswami status over such lands.
The judgment is expected to have far-reaching implications for revenue administration and land-rights disputes across Chhattisgarh, particularly in cases involving traditional village service lands and claims of ownership by descendants of service holders.
By answering the reference in the negative, the Court has provided legal clarity and settled an important question concerning the distinction between service tenure and proprietary ownership under land revenue laws.