Back
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
R. L. Narasimham, C. J. And Barman, J.
BENUDHAR DALAI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - Respondent
O. J. C. 157 Of 1956
Decided On : April 04, 1958
ESTATE ABOLITION - ORISSA ESTATES ABOLITION ACT, 1951 - SECTION 5(I) - JURISDICTION OF COLLECTOR TO ANNUL LEASE - DISPUTE AS TO DATE OF LEASE - CIVIL COURT'S JURISDICTION TO EXAMINE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed to have obtained a permanent lease of land from the proprietor of a touzi, which vested in the Government under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. The Collector annulled the lease under Section 5(i) of the Act, finding that it was made after the vesting of the touzi and with the object of defeating the provisions of the Act. The petitioner appealed to the President, Board of Revenue, who upheld the Collector's findings.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Collector had jurisdiction to decide the question of the date of the lease, even though there was a dispute between the parties, as this was a collateral fact on which his jurisdiction to annul the lease depended. However, the Collector's decision on this issue was not conclusive and could be challenged in a civil court.
Issues: 1. Whether the Collector had jurisdiction to annul the lease in the presence of a dispute regarding the date of the lease. 2. Whether the Collector's decision on the date of the lease was conclusive.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the principle laid down in Queen v. Commr. for Special purpose of Income-tax, (1888) 21 QBD 313, which distinguishes between cases where a tribunal has jurisdiction to determine a preliminary fact on which its further jurisdiction depends, and cases where the legislature has given the tribunal jurisdiction to decide all facts, including the preliminary facts. In the instant case, the court held that the Collector had jurisdiction to determine the date of the lease, as this was a preliminary fact on which his further jurisdiction to annul the lease depended. 2. The court held that the Collector's decision on the date of the lease was not conclusive, as the Act did not make his decision final and conclusive. Therefore, the civil court had jurisdiction to examine the Collector's decision and determine whether he had acted within his jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The petition was rejected, but there was no order for costs.
R. L. NARASIMHAM, C. J.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, against the order of the board of Revenue dated 23-9-1955 in Estate Abolition Appeal Case No. 13 of 1955-56.
( 2 ) THE petitioner claimed to have obtained permanent lease of Survey Plot No. 132 having an area of 61 decimals and 97 decimals out of Survey Plot No. 133 in village Singla, appertaining to touzi No. 794, from the then proprietor of that touzi. When the touzi vested in the Government by virtue of the provision of the orissa Estates Abolition Act, the Collector of Balsore in purported exercise of the powers conferred on him by Clause (i) of Section 5 of that Act annulled the lease on the ground that (i) it was in fact made after the vesting of the touzi in the government and (2) it was made with a view to defeat the provisions of the Act. The petitioner appealed to the President, Board of Revenue who maintained the aforesaid findings of the Collector and dismissed the appeal.
( 3 ) MR. Pal on behalf of the petitioner urged that as there was a dispute between the parties as regards the date of lease -- the petitioner alleging that it took place sometime in 1944 and the Anchal Adhikary alleging that it took place after the abolition of the touzi --the "collector had no jurisdiction to annul the lease in exercise of his powers under Clause (i) of Section 5 of the Estates Abolition Act and that consequently his order as well as the appellate order of the President, board of Revenue, were without jurisdiction. Mr. Pal relied on a decision of the Patna High Court reported in Umesh Jha v. The state, AIR 1956 Pat 425 (A) where a Division Bench held, on a construction of a similar provision in the Bihar Estates Abolition Act, that the Collector had no jurisdiction to annul any lease made by the proprietor if there was any dispute as to the date of such lease.
( 4 ) TO appreciate the points involved, it is necessary briefly to refer to some of the provisions of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. As soon as a notification is issued under Section 3 (1) of that Act, the estate vests in the Government, free from all encumbrances. Section 5 contains several clauses which deal with the consequential effect arising out of the vesting of an estate and the material clause in Clause (i ). Omitting immaterial portions I may reproduce below the main provisions of that clause:
''5 (i) -- Where a Collector is satisfied in respect of the settlement or lease of any land. . comprised in such estate. . . . . made or created at any time after 1-1-1946, that such settlement, lease or transfer. . . . . . was made with the object of defeating the provisions of this Act, or obtaining higher compensation thereunder, he shall, have power to make enquiries in respect of such settlement, lease or transfer and may, after giving reasonable notice to the parties concerned to appear and be heard, set aside any such settlement, lease or transfer, dispossess the person claiming under it, and take possession of such property in the manner provided in Clause (h) on such terms as may appear to him to be fair and equitable. "
This clause gives jurisdiction to the Collector to set aside any settlement or lease made by the proprietor of an estate after 1-1-1946, if he is satisfied that such settlement or lease was made or created (1) with the object of defeating any of the provisions of the Act, or (ii) for the purpose of obtaining a higher compensation thereunder. The relevant date of settlement or lease was fixed as 11-1946, because the intention of the Government to abolish the zamindari system was well known sometime even in 1945 and there was an apprehension that the zamindars would try to diminish the assets of their estates by making settlements and collecting as much money as possible from the lessees. The aforesaid clause is so drafted as to lead to an inference that the satisfaction of the Collector is restricted to the ascertainment of the object of the settlement or
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
