Khudkasht land protection remains confined to the proprietor; mortgagee in possession gains no indefeasible right after vesting.

Under the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951, protection for khudkasht land applies to the Zamindar or proprietor, not to a mortgagee in possession. A mortgagee whose security existed before vesting does not acquire a superior, indefeasible right to retain possession or resist redemption merely because the land vested in the State. The Court further applied stare decisis, holding that the long-settled interpretation of the Act should not be disturbed after decades of consistent application and reliance in the State. The mortgagee therefore could not claim a better title on the basis of the Act, and the settled construction was maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951, a mortgagee in possession of khudkasht land mortgaged before vesting can claim a superior or indefeasible right to retain possession or resist redemption, and whether the settled interpretation of the Act should be departed from.

Analysis: The Act defines khudkasht land as land cultivated by the Zamindar himself or through employees or hired labourers and provides for vesting of proprietary rights in the State, while preserving the Zamindar's right to remain in possession of khudkasht land recorded as such before vesting. On a reading of the Act as a whole, the protection is intended for the Zamindar or proprietor, not for a mortgagee, and the mortgagee cannot improve his status into ownership or an indefeasible right to possess the land merely because the land was mortgaged before vesting. The Court also held that the interpretation settled in the earlier decision on the same statute had stood for decades and governed numerous transactions in the State, so the doctrine of stare decisis required adherence to that settled view. The later decision dealing with a different statute did not justify departing from the interpretation already accepted for the Madhya Bharat legislation.

Conclusion: The mortgagee could not claim a better title or resist redemption on the basis of the Act, and the settled interpretation was maintained against the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951, the protection of khudkasht land is confined to the Zamindar or proprietor, and a mortgagee in possession does not acquire an enlarged or indefeasible right by reason of vesting; a long-settled construction of such a statute should ordinarily not be disturbed.

---