SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
25th November, 1963
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A.K. SARKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.
State of Orissa (in both the appeals), Appellant
Versus
1. Ram Chandra Dev (In C. A. No. 293 of 1959) 2. Mohan Prasad Singh Deo (In C. A. No. 294 of 1959), Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 293 and 294 of 1959.
Advocates appeared
Mr. D. S. Sahu, Advocate General for the State of Orissa and Mr. C. B. Agarwala, Senior Advocate, (M/s. R. Ganapathy Iyer and R. N. Sachthey, Advocates, with them), for Appellant (in both the appeals); Mr. T. V. R. Tatachari, Advocate, for Respondents (in both the appeals).
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - WRIT - ART. 226 - JURISDICTION - RIGHT AS FOUNDATION - POSSESSION UNDER RESUMABLE GRANT - NO RIGHT AGAINST GRANTOR STATE - WRIT CANNOT BE ISSUED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, the State of Orissa, issued notices to the respondents, ex-Zamindars, informing them that their Muthas would be resumed with effect from a certain date. The respondents filed petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, claiming that they had proprietary interest in the areas granted to them and the appellant had no right to resume the lands thus granted to them and was not entitled to recover possession from them.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the respondents had a right to possession of the properties which could sustain their petitions under Art. 226 and issued a writ restraining the appellant from taking possession of the properties.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in issuing a writ restraining the appellant from taking possession of the properties.
Ratio Decidendi: The existence of a right is the foundation of a petition under Art. 226. The respondents failed to prove any legal right in respect of the properties of which they apprehended they would be dispossessed by the appellant. The High Court erred in issuing a writ against the appellant and in favor of the respondents in the writ petitions.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the orders issued by the High Court were set aside with costs throughout.
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.: The short question of law which arises in these two appeals is whether the High Court of Orissa was justified in issuing a writ directing the appellant State of Orissa not to dispossess the two respondents in the two appeals respectively of the Maliahs without their consent otherwise than in due course of law. This question arises in this way. In the High Court six petitions were filed by six ex-Zamindars of Ganjam District respectively under Art. 226 of the Constitution against the appellant. Each one of them alleged that he apprehended danger to his property situated in portions of Ganjam Agency tracts known as Maliahs by threat of executive action. The case set out by these Zamindars was that the Ganjam plains which are partly situated in Orissa and partly in the Andhra State, had been permanently settled with them under the provisions of the Madras Regulations No. XXV of 1802. The Zamindaris thus permanently settled on them have been acquired by the respective Governments of the two States under the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act. Adjacent west of Ganjam plaints lie hilly tracts which are inhabited by aboriginals. These tracts are known as Agency tracts; portions of these tracts were granted to the Zamindars by various Sanads issued by the Governor-in-Council of Fort S. George, Madras, sometime in 1874 and 1875. The areas thus granted by the Sanads were known as Maliahs and the Zamindars to whom the said areas were granted were described as Muthdars of their respective Maliahs. It appears that on Mach 30,1954, the appellant informed the six respective Muthadars by notices duly served on them that their Muthas would be resumed with effect from that date. The petitioners contention before the High Court was that they had proprietary interest in the areas granted to them and the appellant had no right to resume the lands thus granted to them and was not entitled to recover possession from them. It was pleaded in the petitions by the ex-Zamindas that the notices served on them had intimated to them that the appellant had resumed their interest as Muthadars and that the resumption would take effect from the date of the order. They were also told that the duties and obligations imposed on them by the original Sanads need not be performed by them. The apprehension which the ex-Zamindars felt as a result of these notices gave rise to the six petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution. They claimed that a writ or other appropriate order or direction should be issued restraining the appellant from taking the action as threatened by the notices issued by it.
2. The appellant resisted these petitions and urged that the applicants, the ex-Zamindars had no proprietary interests at all in the Maliahs. The said Maliahs had been granted to them by virtue of the office they held under the Sanads and the grant was intended to serve as remuneration for the services rendered by them by virtue of the said office. Thus, the lands were held by the ex-Zamindars on service tenures which were resumable at the will of the appellant. That is why the notices issued by the appellant were perfectly valid and as a result of the resumption of the grants, the ex-Zamindars were not entitled to continue in possession of the areas originally granted to them.
3. It would thus be seen that the main dispute between the parties was in regard to the nature of the grant and the title conferred on the ex-Zamindars by virtue of the said grant. The distinction between grants of land burdened with service, and grants of land made by way of remuneration attaching to the office created by them is well known. In the first category of cases, the grant may not be resumable, while in the second category of cases, with the abolition of the office the land can be resumed. The parties were at issue on the question about the character of the grants under which the predecessors of the ex-Zamindars were originally granted the areas in questi
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.