Back
2003(5) Supreme 518
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Orissa High Court)
V.N. Khare, CJI., K.G. Balakrishnan & S.B. Sinha, JJ
State of Orissa -Appellant
versus
Nityanand Satpathy & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7670 of 1997
Decided on 31-7-2003
Counsel for the Paties :
For the Appearing Parties : J.K. Das, Janaranjan Das, G. Biswal, Ms. M. Gahlot, S. Mishra, Anukul Ch. Pradhan, Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Ms. K. Sarada Devi, Bhupender Yadav, Ms. Babita Yadav and Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Advocates.
Held : Section 7 of the Act provides for an exception. It, thus, must be construed strictly. In terms of the afore-mentioned provision, only the lands specified therein can be retained by the intermediaries as a raiyat but such a right can be exercised only in the event an order is passed by the appropriate authority on an application filed in this behalf. In terms of sub-section (1) of Section 7, only the land used for cultivation and horticultural purposes which were in khas possession of an intermediary on the date of such vesting would be conceived. The expression khas possession has been defined in Section 2(j) which too means land used for agricultural or horticultural purposes . The possession of an intermediary of any land used for agricultural or horticultural purposes means the possession of such intermediary by cultivating such land or carrying horticultural operations thereon himself with his own stock or by his own servants or by hired labour or with hired stock. A bare perusal of the afore-mentioned provision shows that for the purpose of taking benefit of the provisions of section 7(1)(a) of the Act, the intermediary must be in cultivating position of the said land either by himself, with his own stock or by his own servants or by hired labour or with hired stock. The nature and character of the land being non-agricultural, the same evidently was not in cultivating position of the intermediaries and, thus, an application for settlement of such land by the intermediaries purported to be in terms of Section 7 of the Act was not maintainable. Furthermore, the land being not used either for cultivation or for horticulture purposes on the date of vesting did not attract the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 7. (Para 7)
ORDER
A large tract of land situate in Village Badagaon, Puri was part of the estate of one Manindra Chandra Sinha.
2. On 24-8-1953, the Orissa State Legislature enacted an Act known as Orissa Estates Abolition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The said Act came into force with effect from 24th August, 1953. Section 5 of the Act provided that all non-agricultural land shall vest in the State. Since the land undisputedly was non-agricultural land, the same vested in the State. It appears that after the death of Manindra Chandra Sinha, his sons executed certain leases. The Dy. Collector, Puri by an order 10-8-1957 revoked those leases. It may be mentioned that Manindra Chandra Sinha died in the year 1922 and by virtue of a Will, his sons, namely, Bimal Chandra Sinha, Amresh Chandra Sinha and Brundaban Chandra Sinha succeeded to the aforesaid estate upon obtaining a probate. All the sons of Manindra Chandra Sinha applied in 1959 for settlement of the said land in their favour under Section 7 of the Act. Although two of the sons have already died during pendency of the application, the Collector by order dated 17-6-1964 settled the aforesaid land in favour of the sons of Manindra Chandra Sinha.
3. Thereafter certain proceedings under the Ceilings Act were initiated against the sons of Manindra Chandra Sinha but we are not concerned with those proceedings in the present case. Subsequently, the sons of Manindra Chandra Sinha by separate registered sale deeds dated 13-6-1983 sold the aforesaid land in favour of respondents herein. On 1-1-1992, the Board of Revenue under Section 38B of the Act exercising suo motu power revoked the settlement of the aforesaid land granted in favour of the sons of Manindra Chandra Sinha, inter alia, on the ground that the land being Anabadi land, had already vested in the State and thus the said land could not have been settled in favour of the sons of intermediary. The respondent-transferees thereafter filed a petition under Section 226 of the Constitution before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned order allowed the writ petition and set aside the order passed by the Board of Revenue. Aggrieved the State of Orissa has filed this appeal by means of special leave petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Orissa urged that the land admittedly being Anabadi land could not have been settled under Section 7 of the Act and the view taken by the High Court is erroneous.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, would urge that as in the instant case not only settlement had been granted upon making thorough inquiry in this behalf by the competent authority, but as such settlement was subject matter of ceiling proceedings proceedings which went up to the Board of Revenue, the order of settlement could not have been cancelled after a long time. Sections 5 and 7 of Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951 read as under:
"5. Consequences of vesting of an estate in the State-Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force of in any contract, on the publication of the notification in the Gazette under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 or Sub-section (1) of Section 3-A or from the date of the execution of the agreement under Section 4, as the case may be the following consequences shall ensue namely:
(a) Subject to the subsequent provisions of this Chapter the entire estate including all communal lands and porambokes, other non-raiyati lands, waste lands, trees, orchards, pasture lands, forests, mines and minerals (whether discovered or undiscovered, or whether being worked or not inclusive of rights in respect of any lease of mines and minerals quarries, rivers and streams tanks and other irrigation works, water channels, fisheries, ferries, hats and bazars, and building or structures together with the land on which they stand shall vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances and such Intermediary shall ceas
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
