1. Dispute over whether buildings on raiyati land, purchased by proprietors and used as offices, vested in the State under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 189
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
30th April 1962
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., K. SUBBA RAO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J.R. MUDHOLKAR AND T.L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR, JJ.
Kumar Bimal Chandra Sinha (deceased) and after him his legal representatives and others, Appellants
Versus
State of Orissa and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 177 of 1960.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Hemendra Chandra Sen, Senior Advocate (Mr. S. Ghose, Advocate, with him ), for Appellants; Mr. N. S. Bindra, senior Advocate (M/s. V. N. Sethi and P. D. Menon, Advocates, with him ), for Respondents.
Advocates:
H.C.Sen, N.S.BINDRA, P.D.MENON, S.GHOSH, V.N.Sethi
H.C.Sen, N.S.BINDRA, P.D.MENON, S.GHOSH, V.N.Sethi
Buildings situated on raiyati land do not vest in the State upon the abolition of an estate, even if used for estate administration, as raiyati interests are not subject to the abolition act targeting intermediaries.
Headnote:(A) The Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 - Sections 2(g), 2(h), 2(i), 3, 5, 6 and 26 - Orissa Tenancy Act - Vesting of estate - Buildings on raiyati land - Whether buildings used for administration of an estate but situated on raiyati land purchased by the proprietor vest in the State upon the vesting of the estate - The Act is intended to abolish intermediaries and establish a direct relationship between the State and the tillers of the soil (raiyats) - A person may simultaneously hold the status of a proprietor of an estate and a raiyat in respect of specific holdings within that estate - Raiyati interests are not the subject-matter of the Act and are not affected by the abolition of intermediary interests (Paras 4, 5, 8).
(B) Definition of Homestead - Section 2(i) - The exclusion of buildings used primarily as offices or kutcheries for administration from the definition of homestead refers to buildings "comprised in such estate" and does not extend to buildings standing on raiyati holdings (Paras 6, 7).
Facts of the case:
The proprietors of an estate purchased certain occupancy holdings from tenants with rights of occupancy, thereby becoming occupancy raiyats of those lands. These lands contained buildings used as offices for the administration of the estate. Upon the vesting of the estate in the State, the State took possession of these buildings, contending that since they were used for estate administration, they vested in the Government. The lower courts held that the buildings vested because of their purpose, regardless of the nature of the land tenure.
Findings of Court:
The raiyati interests in the lands and the buildings standing thereon were not affected by the abolition of the interest as proprietors. The State authorities illegally took possession of the properties.
Issues: Whether buildings situated on raiyati land, used for the administration of an estate, vest in the State upon the vesting of the estate under the relevant abolition act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court distinguished between the interest of a proprietor (estate) and that of a raiyat (holding). Since the Act targets the abolition of intermediaries and not the interests of raiyats, land held by a proprietor in the capacity of a raiyat does not form part of the "estate" for the purpose of vesting. The use of the building as an office does not change the nature of the land's tenure from raiyati to proprietary, and the definition of homestead specifically refers to buildings comprised in the estate, not those on raiyati holdings.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether buildings used for estate administration vest in the State upon vesting of the estate, regardless of whether they stand on raiyati land or proprietary land. (Para 2 )
3. The court distinguished between a person's status as a proprietor of an estate and their status as a raiyat of specific holdings within that estate. (Para 4 , 5 , 7 )
4. Raiyati interests in land and buildings do not vest in the State upon the abolition of intermediary interests, regardless of the buildings' use for estate administration. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 )
5. Appeal allowed; the State's possession of the raiyati lands and buildings was held illegal. (Para 9 )
6. Does the vesting of an estate include raiyati holdings purchased by the proprietor?
No. The Act aims to abolish intermediaries between the State and the raiyat. A proprietor who acquires the interest of a raiyat holds that specific land as a raiyat, not as a proprietor, and such raiyati interests do not vest in the State. (Para 4 , 5 )
7. Do buildings used as offices for estate administration always vest in the State upon estate abolition?
Only if the buildings are comprised in the estate. Buildings standing on raiyati holdings are not subject to the Act's vesting provisions, even if used primarily for the administration of the estate. (Para 5 , 7 )
8. Does the inclusion of raiyati rents in the calculation of gross assets for compensation imply that raiyati interests vest in the State?
No. The inclusion of rents payable by raiyats in the gross assets for determining compensation to the outgoing proprietor does not mean that the raiyati interests themselves vest in the State. (Para 8 )
Judgment
SINHA, C.J.I. : This appeal on a certificate granted by the high Court of Orissa raises the question of the interpretation of certain provisions of The Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (Orissa Act I of 1952) -which hereinafter will be referred to as the Act. The appellants who were petitioners in the High Court were the proprietors of an estate known as Paikpara Estate, in the district of Puri, bearing Touzi Nos, 268, 269 and 270. The respondents are the State of Orissa and its officials.
2. The facts on which the High Court based its judgment under appeal are as follows. Within the said Paikpara Estate, there were several tenures and sub-proprietary interests. The Paikpara Estate vested in the State of Orissa by virtue of a notification issued under S. 3 of the Act, on August 23, 1953. It is common ground that the interests of tenure-holders and sub-proprietors within the said estate have not yet been taken over under the provisions of the Act. Under the tenure-holders aforesaid, there were some occupancy holdings which had been purchased by the proprietors, the appellants in this Court, long ago. Thus the proprietor by virtue of their purchase became occupany raiyats, under the tenure-holders or sub-proprietors, in respect of the holdings purchased by them. It is also common ground that in the last Settlement Khatians their interests as occupancy raiyats in respect of the holdings purchased by them have been recorded. On the lands of the occupancy holdings, there were several buildings which were used as Katcheri houses by the proprietors, for the administration of their estate. In January, 1954, according to the Petitioners in the High Court, the State officials took illegal possession of those buildings situate on the raiyati land, as aforesaid. The appellants thereupon made an application to the Collector of Puri for vacant possession of the lands and the buildings described in the petition, on the allegation that those lands together with the buildings purchased from tenants with rights of occupancy, were, after purchase by the proprietors, used as Katcheri house by them. They also alleged that those properties had not vested in the State of Orissa as a result of the said notification, under the Act. Part of the said house had been let out to the Postal Department. The Anchal Adhikari of that area wrote to the Postmaster, and Superintendent of Post Offices, not to pay rent to the proprietors. The Postal Department, therefore, vacated that portion of the building in their occupation, which has gone into the occupation of the State Government. Another portion of the property, which was used as dhangola was let out for Storing Paddy, to a third party. That dhangola was also taken illegal possession of by the Naib Tahsildar of the place. Other portions of the property also are in illegal possession of the State Government, through its Anchal Adhikari. It was thus claimed on behalf of the proprietors that the State Government had no right to take possession of the property as it did not form part of the estate which had been acquired under the Act, and had on notification, vested in the State Government. The learned Collector of Puri did not concede the demand of the proprietors, and held that the occupancy holding is situated within the tenure held under the proprietors and lay within the geographical limits of the estate which had vested in the Government. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Collector, dated November 20, 1956. 1914 the proprietors moved the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for relief against what was alleged to be illegal interference with their interest not as proprietors but as occupancy tenants. The High Court dismissed the proprietors claim chiefly on the ground that the question raised by the petition before the High Court was "practically concluded by the observations of the SC in the case of K. C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa , 1954 S C R 1 :
3. It is manif
