Back
Orissa High Court
G. K. MISRA, C.J., P. K. MOHANTI, AND N. K. DAS, JJ.
Magulu Jal - Appellant
Versus
Bhagaban Rai - Respondents
Second Appeal No. 340 of 1970
Decided On : 15 April 1975
REVENUE - ABOLITION OF GAONTIA SYSTEM - SETTLEMENT OF BHOGRA LANDS - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - ORISSA MERGED TERRITORIES (VILLAGE OFFICES ABOLITION) ACT, 1963 (ORISSA ACT 10 OF 1963) - SECTIONS 3, 5, 9, 13 - PRESS NOTE DATED 2-2-1956 - BOARD'S INSTRUCTIONS ON THE DISPOSAL OF GAONTIA ABOLITION AND BHOGRA CONVERSION PROCEEDINGS IN THE SONEPUR SUB-DIVISION OF BOLANGIR DISTRICT - VALIDITY - SCOPE AND AMBIT OF CIVIL COURT'S JURISDICTION - WHETHER THE CIVIL COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ANNUL THE SETTLEMENT MADE BY THE COLLECTOR - WHETHER THE ACT IS APPLICABLE TO THE SETTLEMENT MADE BY THE COLLECTOR ON 16-12-1962.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the disputed lands after setting aside the order of the Collector (Ext. N) dated 16-12-1962 settling A Schedule lands on the defendants on raiyati basis. Defendants 1 to 3, 6, 7, 9 to 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 and 23 filed a joint written statement. Most of the facts are not disputed. It was averred that the ancestors of the defendants were raiyats of the disputed lands for more than sixty years. They had reclaimed the land by being brought into the suit village by the ancestors of the plaintiffs. They were in cultivating possession and as such A Schedule lands were recorded in the current settlement in 1955-56 in their names. The order of the Collector settling A Schedule lands on them is valid and legal and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to annul the settlement.
Finding of the Court:
The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to annul the settlement made by the Collector. The Act is not applicable to the settlement made by the Collector on 16-12-1962.
Issues: 1. Did the proprietary rights in Bhogra lands vest in the State? 2. Had the Collector of Bolangir (defendant No. 24) authority to convert the Bhogra lands into raiyati and make settlement of the raiyati lands under the Press Note dated 2-2-1956? 3. Is the order of settlement of the Collector invalid and illegal in the absence of provision in the Press Note prescribing the procedure for enquiry before settlement is made ? 4. Is any appeal provided against the order of the Collector and, if so, if it is valid ? 5. Has the Civil Court jurisdiction to annul the settlement made by the Collector ? If so, what is the scope and ambit of that jurisdiction ? 6. Is the Act which came into force in the ex-State of Sonepur from 1-12-1972 applicable to the settlement made by the Collector on 16-12-1962 ? Is the jurisdiction of the Civil Court barred under the Act to annul any settlement made by the Collector ? 7. Do Pasupati Mahanto v Damodar Mahanto, (1970) 36 Cut LT 519. Dhanu Malik v. Lal Sitanshu Sekhar Singh Deo, (1971) 37 Cut LT 1152, Kia Pateluni v. Ghasana Naikani, (1973) 1 Cut WR 203 and Chandrabhanu Naik v. Mst. Gomati Naikani, (1974) 40 Cut LT 549 lay down the correct law ? 8. To what extent the views expressed by our learned brothers S. K. Ray and K. B. Panda, JJ., in the differing judgments are sustainable ? 9. To what relief if any, are the plaintiffs entitled?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The proprietary rights in Bhogra lands vested in the State. 2. The Collector of Bolangir had the authority to convert the Bhogra lands into raiyati and make settlement of the raiyati lands under the Press Note dated 2-2-1956. 3. The order of settlement of the Collector is not invalid and illegal in the absence of provision in the Press Note prescribing the procedure for enquiry before settlement is made. 4. An appeal was provided against the order of the Collector to the Revenue Divisional Commissioner. 5. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to annul the settlement made by the Collector. The Civil Court's jurisdiction is impliedly barred. 6. The Act is not applicable to the settlement made by the Collector on 16-12-1962. 7. Pasupati Mahanto v Damodar Mahanto, (1970) 36 Cut LT 519, Dhanu Malik v. Lal Sitanshu Sekhar Singh Deo, (1971) 37 Cut LT 1152, Kia Pateluni v. Ghasana Naikani, (1973) 1 Cut WR 203 and Chandrabhanu Naik v. Mst. Gomati Naikani, (1974) 40 Cut LT 549 lay down the correct law. 8. The views expressed by S. K. Ray and K. B. Panda, JJ., in the differing judgments are not sustainable. 9. The plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration of title to the B Schedule lands and recovery of possession from the defendants who trespassed thereon. The defendants are entitled to the A Schedule lands by the settlement and plaintiffs cannot evict them. The C Schedule lands are the raiyati lands of the plaintiffs. They were in their possession. Defendants are trespassers and are liable to be evicted therefrom.
Final Decision: Appeal partly allowed.
Judgement
G. K. MISRA, C.J. :- The case of the plaintiff may be stated in short. Schedules A, B and C of the plaint constitute the disputed lands. A and B Schedules are Bhorga lands. They were a part of holding No. 1 of the 3rd settlement (1927) in the ex-State of Sonepur. Schedule A and B lands respectively comprise 3.21 acres and 15.52 acres. Schedule C lands were in holding No. 48 of the 3rd settlement and were raiyati lands with an area of 39.84 acres. All the three schedule lands were recorded in the name of Jaisingh Rai, father of the plaintiffs, in the 3rd settlement. Schedule A and B lands were converted into rayati by order (Ext. N) of the Collector. Bolangir, on 16-12-1962 in Bhogra Conversion Proceedings in respect of village Siali in which the suit lands are situated. Jaisingh Rai died on 16-11-1954. Till his death he was in peaceful physical possession of the disputed lands in his own right, title and interest. After his death plaintiffs inherited the properties and were in possession thereof. At the time of harvest of the crops in 1957, defendants 1, 6 and some other defendants disturbed the possession of the plaintiffs. In a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code the possession of the plaintiffs was declared in respect of A and B Schedule lands. The preliminary order in that case was passed on 23-11-1957. Thereafter plaintiffs leased out A and B Schedule lands to Bhikari Das and Udhaba Sahu for one year and cultivated the C Schedule lands themselves. Defendants again created disturbance. An order under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code in respect of A and C Schedule lands was passed in their favour on 10-7-1963. In the current settlement of the year 1955-56 possession of A Schedule lands had been recorded in the names of defendants 1 and 2 and the Collector on the basis of such recording settled A Schedule lands in the names of defendants 1, 6, 9, 14, 17 and 19 on raiyati basis. Plaintiffs filed an appeal in 1963 against the order of the Collector before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner which was dismissed by the order (Ext. 11) on 15-3-1966. The suit was filed on 16-5-1964 during the pendency of the appeal before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the disputed lands after setting aside the order of the Collector (Ext. N) dated 16-12-1962 settling A Schedule lands on the defendants on raiyati basis. Defendants 1 to 3, 6, 7, 9 to 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 and 23 filed a joint written statement. Most of the facts are not disputed. It was averred that the ancestors of the defendants were raiyats of the disputed lands for more than sixty years. They had reclaimed the land by being brought into the suit village by the ancestors of the plaintiffs. They were in cultivating possession and as such A Schedule lands were recorded in the current settlement in 1955-56 in their names. The order of the Collector settling A Schedule lands on them is valid and legal and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to annul the settlement.
2. The learned Munsif, Sonepur, after allowing parties to go into evidence on all disputed questions held that plaintiffs were in possession of the disputed lands all through and defendants were not in possession and that the order of the Collector settling A Schedule lands on the defendants in the Bhogra Conversion Proceedings was contrary to law and the Civil Court had jurisdiction to set it aside. He set aside the settlement on the defendants in respect of A Schedule lands and granted a decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the disputed lands. The contesting defendants filed an appeal before the Subordinate Judge, Bolangir, which was dismissed. Those defendants filed the second appeal. During the pendency of the second appeal the Orissa Merged Territories (Village Offices Abolition) Act, 1963 (Orissa Act 10 of 1963) (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) came into force in the ex-State of Sonepur from 1-12
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
