Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
6th December, 1957.
N.H. BHAGWATI, B.P. SINHA, JAFER IMAM, J.L. KAPUR AND P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR JJ.
Jagannath Behera and others,. Appellants
Versus
Raja Harihar Singh Maharaj Bhramarbara Roy. Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 309 of 1955.
The State of Orissa, Intervener.
Advocates appeared
Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India and B. Sen, Senor Advocate, (Mr. B. M. Patnaik, Advocate, Orissa High Court - With Special Permission of the Court and Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Advocate, with them,), for Appellants (for Nos. 1, 3 to 9 and 11 to 16 and the Intervener); M/s. H. Mahapatra and Gyan Chand Mathur, Advocates, for Respondent.
LANDLORD AND TENANT - Orissa Tenants Protection Act, 1948 (Orissa III of 1948) - Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act, 1950 (Orissa IV of 1950) - Orissa Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act, 1951 (Orissa XVII of 1951) - Interpretation and application of the Acts - Whether the respondent was a landlord and the appellants were his tenants within the meaning of the terms as defined in the 1948 Act - Whether the provisions of the 1950 Act could be validly applied to the merged State of Khandapara in spite of Art. 3 of the said Agreement thus attracting the operation of the 1948 Act to his private lands - Whether the provisions of the 1948 Act in regard to the hierarchy of revenue courts and the procedure and the penalties provided therein are attracted to the merged State of Khandapara.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, the erstwhile ruler of the Khandapara State, entered into an agreement with the Governor-General of India on 14-12-1947, wherein it was provided that he shall be entitled to full ownership, use, and enjoyment of all private properties belonging to him on the date of the agreement. The Khandapara State merged with the Province of Orissa under the States Merger (Governor's Provinces) Order, 1949. The Orissa Legislature passed the Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act, 1950, which extended the Orissa Tenants Protection Act, 1948, to the merged areas. The Orissa Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act, 1951, was passed to modify the tenancy laws in the merged states. Certain tenants who were evicted by the respondent filed applications under the 1948 Act, claiming restoration of possession of their tenancy lands. The Revenue Officer directed restoration of possession to them, holding that they were tenants on the 1st day of August, 1949, and were entitled to the benefits conferred by the 1948 Act. The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court, challenging the proceedings on the ground that he was not a landlord within the meaning of the 1948 Act and that the provisions of the Act were inconsistent with his fundamental right under Art. 19 of the Constitution. The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the provisions of the 1950 Act could be validly applied to the merged State of Khandapara in spite of Art. 3 of the said Agreement thus attracting the operation of the 1948 Act to his private lands. The Court further held that the respondent was a landlord and the appellants were his tenants within the meaning of the terms as defined in the 1948 Act. The Court also held that the provisions of the 1948 Act in regard to the hierarchy of revenue courts and the procedure and the penalties provided therein are attracted to the merged State of Khandapara.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of the 1950 Act could be validly applied to the merged State of Khandapara in spite of Art. 3 of the said Agreement thus attracting the operation of the 1948 Act to his private lands? 2. Whether the respondent was a landlord and the appellants were his tenants within the meaning of the terms as defined in the 1948 Act? 3. Whether the provisions of the 1948 Act in regard to the hierarchy of revenue courts and the procedure and the penalties provided therein are attracted to the merged State of Khandapara?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of the 1950 Act could be validly applied to the merged State of Khandapara in spite of Art. 3 of the said Agreement thus attracting the operation of the 1948 Act to his private lands because: a. The dispute between the appellants and the respondent did not arise out of any provisions of the said Agreement. b. The full ownership, use and enjoyment of the properties which were declared to be the private properties of the respondent was not sought to be affected by the extending the 1948 Act, to the merged State of Khandapara. c. The measures imposed on the respondent were in common with all the citizens of the Union and the justification for the same could be sought under Cl. 5 of Art. 19 of the Constitution. 2. The respondent was a landlord and the appellants were his tenants within the meaning of the terms as defined in the 1948 Act because: a. The statutory extension of the definition of the terms landlord and tenant contained in the explanation to S. 7 (a) of the 1950 Act makes the appellants the tenants and the respondent a landlord in regard to the lands in question. 3. The provisions of the 1948 Act in regard to the hierarchy of revenue courts and the procedure and the penalties provided therein are attracted to the merged State of Khandapara because: a. Both the 1948 Act and the 1950 Act have to be read together. b. The provisions of sub-ss. (a) and (h) of S. 7 of the 1950 Act which applied to the dispute which arose between the appellants and the respondent read together with the relevant provisions in regard to the procedure, penalties, etc., contained in the 1948 Act did give jurisdiction to the Revenue Officer to entertain the dispute between the parties.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order made by the High Court, and restored the orders passed by the Revenue Officer in the O. T. P. Act Cases Nos. 21 to 25 of 1952, 26 to 28 of 1952, 29 to 32 of 1952 and 33 to 41 of 1952. The respondent was directed to pay the appellants' costs of the appeal as also of the writ petition in the High Court.
Judgment
N. H. BHAGWATI J. : This appeal with a certificate under Arts. 132 and 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution arises out of a writ petition filed by the respondent in the High Court of Orissa under Art. 226 seeking to quash the proceedings taken by certain tenants of his private lands under the provisions of the Orissa Tenants Protection Act, 1948 (Orissa III of 1948), hereinafter referred to as the 1948 Act.
2. The respondent was the ruler of the erstwhile Khandapara State which merged with the Province of Orissa under the States Merger (Governor s Provinces) Order, 1949 with effect from 1-8-1949. The respondent had on 14-12-1947 entered into an agreement with the Governor-General of India Art. 3 whereof provided that:
"The Raja shall be entitled to full ownership, use, and enjoyment of all private properties (as distinct from State Properties) belonging to him on the date of the agreement."
3. That article further provided that if any dispute arose as to whether any item of property was the private property of the Raja or State property, it shall be referred to such officer with judicial experience as the Dominion Government might nominate and the decision of that officer shall be final and binding of both parties. The respondent claimed a number of properties and the matter was referred to the Adviser for Orissa States for determining whether all the items claimed by him could be regarded as his private properties. On 10-6-1949, the Adviser communicated his decision that the respondent was entitled to 1,643 acres as his Khamar lands and 29 and odd acres as lands settled with his tenants. The lands comprised in the present proceedings taken under the 1948 Act as aforesaid were declared to be the private properties of the respondent.
4. On 3-3-1950, the Orissa Legislature passed the Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act, 1950 (Orissa IV of 1950) hereinafter referred to as "the 1950 Act". Section 4 of that Act extended inter alia the 1948 Act to the areas merged in the absorbing Province of Orissa. Section 7 provided for the modification of tenancy laws in force in the merged states. The relevant provisions of that section so far as they are material for the purposes of this appeal may be set out herein:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in the tenancy laws of the merged States as continued in force by virtue of Art. 4 of the States Merger (Governor s Provinces) Order, 1949:
(a) all suits and proceedings between landlord and tenant as such shall be institute and tried in revenue courts.
Explanation: In this clause the expression "landlord" shall mean a person immediately under whom a tenant holds land, and the expression "tenant" shall mean a person who holds land under another person and is or, but for a special contract, would be liable to pay rent for that land to that person:
...............................
(h) when a person holds Khamar, nijjote or any other private lands of a Ruler, which has been recognised as such by the Provincial Government, he shall not be liable to ejectment but shall be liable to pay such fair and equitable rent as may be fixed by any competent authority appointed in this behalf by the Revenue Commissioner or the Commissioner, Northern Division, as the case may be and thereupon he shall acquire right of occupancy in respect of such lands:"
5. On 14-4-1951, the State Legislature passed the Orissa Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act, 1951 (Orissa XVII of 1951) whereby the date the "1st day of September, 1947" wherever it was used in the 1950 Act, was substituted by the "1st day of August, 1949" for the purposes of the merged states areas and it was further provided that in such areas where neither the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, nor the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913 was in force the special laws or customs prevailing therein shall be taken into consideration for the application of that Act.
6. It appears that certain tenants who were in occupation of the private lands of the respondent were evicted by him durin
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
