Who Owns Mhow? Read online

  God bless you all.

  MAHARAJA HOLKAR".

  9. A Notification in the Holkar Government Gazette, Indore, Monday 18 and August 1947

  To celebrate the retrocession, there is a Notification in the Holkar Government Gazette, Indore, Monday 18, and August 1947, which reads:

  Prime Minister's Office, Indore.

  Notification Dated the 17th August, 1947.

  "In order to mark the occasion of the attainment of full Sovereignty, His Highness the Maharaja Holkar under the new Constitution, on the lapse of Paramountcy, and of the attainment of the freedom of India, it is hereby ordered, under the commands of His Highness the Maharaja Holkar, that fifty prisoners undergoing various terms of imprisonment in the Central Jail at Indore be released as per list prepared by the Jail authorities and agreed to by the Inspector General of Police, Holkar State.

  Signed by R.A.Horton,

  Prime Minister to H.H. The Maharaja Holkar",

  The Holkar Maharaja administered Mhow as a cantonment between 1947 and 1950. In 1947 and 1948 various Native States, including Holkar acceded to the Indian Union. They also combined with neighbouring States. Holkar combined with Bhopal, Gwalior etc. to form Madhya Bharat. The new state of Madhya Bharat executed a fresh instrument of accession tot eh Union of India in 1947, but reserve to itself the rights over the land within its territories.

  10. The Revised Instrument of Accession

  (19th July 1948)

  The Revised Instrument of Accession (19thJuly 1948) was executed by Maharajadhiraja Sir George Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur of Gwalior, Indore and Malwa on behalf of the United State of Madhya Bharat.

  Whereas by instrument of accession executed in august, November and December 1947 and February 1948, the rulers of the states specified in the Schedule hereto have acceded to the Dominion of India.

  And whereas by Covenant entered into in April 1948, the Rulers of the said States have with the consent of the Government of India agreed to the Integration of the respective territories into a single State known as the United State of Gwalior, Indore and Malwa (Madhya Bharat) in this Instrument referred to as The United State."

  Section 7 of the above Instrument explains: Nothing in this Instrument shall empower the Dominion Legislature to make any law for the United State authorizing the compulsory acquisition of land for any purpose. But, should the Dominion for the purposes of a Dominion Law which applies in the United State, deem it necessary to acquire any land, the Raj Pramukh of the United State shall, at the request and at the expense of the Dominion Government acquire the land, or, transfer it to them on such terms as may be agreed upon. In case of default, an arbitrator would be appointed by the Chief Justice of India.

  The Govenor Generel of India, C.Rajagopalchari accepted this instrument of accession on 13-9-1948.

  This makes it abundantly clear that Madhya Bharat did not handover the right to acquire property in its domain to the centre.

  11. The first Schedule of the Constitution of India

  In the first Schedule of the Constitution of India, article 124 (which was substituted by the 7th amendment in 1956), Madhya Bharat is listed in Part B. this lists the names of the territories which immediately before the commencement of the constitution belonged to the Indian states. This is further proof that Mhow was not handed over to the centre by the British, but to Holkar at the time of quitting India .

  The Constitution of India which came into effect in 1950 provided that lands and rights over land will remain subjects of the State and not for the central legislation. It retained the position as per the Government of India act 1935.

  A States Reorganization Act was passed in 1956, whereby 'Madhya Bharat' became a part of a much larger area comprising the Central Provinces, Berar, etc. and has since been called 'Madhya Pradesh'. Till the formation of the State of Chattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh was the largest State in India. Now too it is the State that retains the land and the rights over it.

  12. The Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India

  The Constitution of India under Schedule VII provides three Lists distributing powers of legislation. List I - Union; List II-States and List 111- Con- current.

  Entry 3 of List I (Union List) reads -"delimitation of cantonment areas, local self-government in such areas, the constitution and powers within such areas of cantonment authorities and the regulation of house accommodation (including the control of rents) in such areas." The powers of the Centre are therefore limited to delimitation of cantonments and their administration.

  In List II, (State List) the subject of Land is covered by entry 18. "Land, that is to say, rights in and over land, land tenures including the relation of landlord and tenant, and the collection of rents; transfer and alienation of agricultural land; land improvement and agricultural loans; colonization". Even in the Union Territories, e.g. Daman, rights over land belong to the Government of the Territory and not to the Union of India. If the Union of India wants some land, it has to approach the State/Union Territory for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. This is what was actually done in the case of the lands around Baircha Lake, next to Mhow.

  A change in the Constitution has later added entry 42 in List Ill, (Concur rent List), "Acquisition and requisitioning of property". The government still has to make a law

  equivalent to the Land Acquisition Act, in order that the Centre may make use of this enabling provision

  13. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894

  The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 even today provides that if the centre requires any land in a state it can get it only through the agency of the state government.

  14. Mass Resumptions

  By a complete misunderstanding of the historical and constitutional pro- visions, The Defence Ministry of the Union of India has resorted to mass "Resumptions" within Cantonment limits, of properties they have never owned! They say this is as per the "Old Grant" terms and they use the "Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act" 1971, which was actually meant to provide a summary mode for eviction of Ministers and Government servants who did not vacate premises allotted to them even when they were no longer entitled to retain such accommodation! This amounts to nothing less than dispossession without authority of law.

  The government claims that it has given land on Old grant terms. However it is very important to prove in which year the Old Grant was given. Laws have changed from time to time and only the year of the Grant will determine which law applies to that particular property. The government's inability to

  THE HISTORY OF MHOW CANTONMENT

  produce the Old Grant prevents the legal procedure from being followed. In the case of P.T.Anklesaria of Poona , Justices Rege and Jahagirdar have stated," On the facts of each case it will have to be found out whether the land in a cantonment area belongs to the government and whether there is evidence before the Court in regard to the actual tenure of this land. Till such evidence is adduced and found reliable, it would be unsafe to assume that the land belonging to a private person was taken over by the government in pursuance of one or other of the regulations framed by the government."

  There is a policy to convert the bazaar area into ''free- hold" land by taking money from property holders. This option is not available to the bungalow owners. Not only is this arbitrary discrimination, but also amounts to the Central Government usurping the rights of the State by selling off land to private parties, land which does not belong to them in the first place. Similarly, the Centre leases lands which do not belong to it.

  The Mhow Cantonment was set up in 1818; many a property may have been in private possession before the Order of 1836, even if it was ever applied in Mhow. The government cannot be allowed to se
cret documents which are invaluable to the rights of the civilians and which have no relevance to the security of the armed forces.

  4. LAND AND PROPERTY RELATED ISSUES

  The people of Mhow were happy and secure in the knowledge that they were the masters of their own castles, their main bug- bear being that the army paid very low rents. They were rudely awakened by 42 Notices of Resumption delivered In 1971, to bungalow owners, claiming that the land belonged to the President of India and the bungalow owners were at liberty to accept the compensation offered or to remove their bungalow from the government premises within 30 days of receiving the notice.

  There is never any negotiation before fixing the rate of compensation for resumption.

  It is always a one sided decision. Justices Rege and Jahagirdar have maintained in the case of P.T.Anklesaria of Poona that "the unilateral determination of the compensation of the structures standing on the land is not in pursuance of any law or any terms of the grant under which originally the land was given to the predecessors - in- title of the petitioner." The army was called upon "to show under what authority the impugned notice is given."

  Data that Cause Concern

  Following is the list of bungalows and their present situation. These bungalows are divided into 4 categories. (The data given below is collected up to the year 2003.)

  1. Resumed bungalows outside existing civil area occupied by military.

  2. Bungalows outside existing civil area but recommended for inclusion in

  extended civil area by Cantonment board. This is proposed because the

  existing civil area is too less for growing population.

  3. Bungalows not included in existing civil area nor recommended for inclusion

  in extended civil area occupied by civilians.

  4. Bungalows in existing civil area-Shops, Restaurants and new Residential

  buildings.

 

  BUNGALOWS IN MHOW CANTONMENT

 

  I RESUMED BUNGALOWS OUTSIDE EXISTING CIVIL AREA OCCUPIED BY MILITARY

  In addition there is about 25 bigas vacant Defence Land

  behind Bungalow 12 to 15 approximately 17.00 totalling 98.27.

  II BUNGALOWS OUTSIDE EXISTING CIVIL AREA BUT RECOMMENDED

  FOR INCLUSION IN EXTENDED CIVIL AREA BY CANTT BOARD

  III BUNGALOWS NOT INCULUDED IN EXISTING CIVIL AREA NOR

  RECOMMENDED FOR INCLUSION IN EXTENDED CIVIL AREA

  OCCUPIED BY CIVILIANS

  IV BUNGALOWS IN EXISTING CIVIL AREA

  The following is the list of resumed bungalows and the compensation offered to the occupants of the bung lows (list is incomplete).

  Looking at the data above, it becomes obvious that the rents paid by the army to civilian landlords is nowhere commensurate with the values in existence even in neighbouring areas that do not fall into cantonment territory.

  It is also shocking to see that the army has tried to acquire huge bungalows by paying compensations varying from Rs. 100/- at the lowest rate to

  Rs. 1,65,046.12, at the highest end of the spectrum. Rs. 600/- for a Cinema Hall speaks loudly for itself and hardly needs comment.

  The bungalow owners have attempted to respond to the above situation by forming a Bungalow Owners' Association, but out of the approximately 160 bungalow owners, only 34 members have joined the Association to date.

  The major lines of response to the "Resumption Notices" include:

  1. Going to court after refusing the cheque.

  2. Entering into arbitration.

  3. Another option commonly exercised by those who got the notices right at

  the beginning, was to "accept the cheque under protest" and then continue to

  fight for a better compensation.

  4. Some did give up and give in, whilst others utilized more than one option

  over a period of time.

  Area of Mhow

  Mhow consists of an area of about 4190 acres. Out of this the bungalow area is 161 acres. The civil area is a further 80 acres. So only 241 acres is used by the civilians.

  Even out of these 241 acres a large number of civilian bungalows are being retired to army officers. Retired army officers have also built their bungalows in this limited area. The army population in Mhow is a floating one, yet we can approximate at roughly 10,000.The civilian population is about one lakh. So one lakh persons stay in less that 241 acres whereas the 10000 army personnel who are only temporarily resident for a few months to a few years enjoy 3949 acres and yet feel the need to take away what little is available to the civilians.

  A further distinction needs to be made between the Bungalow and Civil area. A population of about 4000 civilians plus army personnel living in rented bungalows, reside in the Bungalow Area spread over 161 acres. In the remaining 80 acres, there are about 30 acres occupied by roads, drains, schools, hospitals and other public amenities. Therefore one finds the rest of population - roughly 85,000, cramped into 50 acres approximately.

  Whereas the huge General's Bungalow which has a compound of round 5 acres is utilized for the benefit of just one couple, approximately 85,000 persons are squeezed into 3,500 buildings. Looking at it from a different angle, one can compare: 2 persons In 5 acres of land versus almost 2000 persons per acre. Yet, the army claims s short of land!

  The resumed bungalows are slowly but steadily turning into ruins

  For nearly 30 years, a large number of the resumed bungalows were slowly but steadily turning into ruins. Hillocks of rubble lay where once proud bungalows stood, housing not only the land lords but thousands of really poor tenants, largely from scheduled castes. When the issue of land use started to raise its head especially in the court cases the military decided to put up boards in front of a large number of unused bungalows, calling them "Messes". Some of those are used proximately five times in a year and remain locked the rest of the time.

  Bungalow 59, where Churchill once lived, was demolished and a board has come up to say that this was an Army Training Ground. However, the " locals say that they have never seen any training being carried out there. A new board has now replaced the other one -it claims the land used to be a water harvesting project. A garden seems to be coming up there. The owner had returned the paltry cheque offered but failed to go arbitration or file a case in court. He has not received a pie for it since the army resumed the place 30 years ago.

  Bungalow 10 has been demolished and there is a foot-ball field out there. Another huge compound is used to park a couple of school buses!

  Just looking at the property one owned turning to rubble in front of ones eyes, lying unused and in ruins, grass growing all over it and illegal cattle grazing on premises that the army says it needs desperately for training, housing and other purposes, must understandably cause hatred and ill - feeling. There are 800 acres of open land already in the army's possession in Mhow. The army auctions grass grown here on a regular basis. The army has also acquired large tracts of land outside the Cantonment area per the terms of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The residents of Mhow feel that the same rates and rules should apply to them.

  The army's refusal to allow an owner repair his house without their permission

  What is found even more amazing was the army's refusal to allow an owner repair his house without their permission. Besides a highly restrictive land Policy under Section 181(3) of the Cantonments Act, the Defence Estates Officer has uncontrolled powers to reject building plans. Those who sought permission from the Cantonment Board for building, re-building or repairs complained that either there was no reply or that the government made the permission conditional
upon their signing some document which damaged their interests and gave away their rights. The Defence Estates Officer is not required to give any reasons for refusal and he routinely states - "Rejected".

  Adverse Possession

  Another observation needs to be recorded. In cases of property belonging to civilians, 'Adverse Possession' takes 12 years. However, 'Adverse Possession' against the Government takes 30 years. The condition for this is that those who are staying in the property should actively assert, openly, continuously and in a hostile manner, that the property is theirs. If the real owner does not bother to disclaim this statement, after 12 years, (30, in case of the government), an occupier can go to court and the court will declare that the occupier is in 'Adverse Possession'. The people of Mhow could have easily claimed 'Adverse Possession', if they knew that the property is not supposed to belong to them. But since they were totally unaware of the Old Grant being applied to them, they never bothered to establish 'Hostile Possession'. The army has since been forcing them to sign Admission Deeds. This has resulted in 'Permissive Possession'. Even those in possession of their properties for over a hundred years are unable to establish ownership via this law.