Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Ahmad, J.
SHYAMAHARI MOHANTY - APPELLANT
Versus
GADADHARNATH SHARMA AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Second Appeal No. 107 of 1964
Decided On : 12-10-1965
ORISSA TENANCY ACT, 1913 - SECTION 3(23), 4, 5(2), 23, 24 - TENANT - RAIYAT - DEFINITION - EXHAUSTIVE LIST - SETTLED RAIYAT - OCCUPANCY RIGHT - ACQUISITION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff claimed to be a settled raiyat of the village and entitled to occupancy rights in the suit lands, which were formerly the tenancy holding of two raiyats who defaulted in payment of rent and were auctioned and purchased by the Rani of Aul. The Plaintiff alleged that the lands were settled with him orally by delivery of possession and he remained in possession till 1957 or 1958. The Defendants, who were in possession of the lands, claimed that they were settled with them by the Raja of Aul in 1955.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found that the Plaintiff was a settled raiyat of the village and had been in possession of the lands in suit till he was dispossessed in 1957 or 1958, and had paid rent to the Aul Estate till it was vested in the State of Orissa. However, the lower appellate court reversed this finding, holding that the Plaintiff was only a bhag tenant and not a raiyat as defined in Section 5 of the Orissa Tenancy Act, and therefore never acquired occupancy right.
Issues: 1. Whether the Plaintiff was a raiyat as defined in Section 5 of the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913. 2. Whether the Plaintiff had acquired occupancy right in the suit lands under Section 24 of the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of 'tenant' in Section 2(j) of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act, 1955 is meant only for the purposes of that Act and does not affect the definition of 'tenant' in Section 3(23) of the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913. 2. The list of classes of tenants given in Section 4 of the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913 is exhaustive. 3. A person who is a tenant as defined in Section 3(23) of the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913 must fall in one of the classes enumerated in Section 4 of that Act. 4. The definition of 'raiyat' in Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913 is meant only to provide a distinction between a raiyat and a tenure-holder. 5. A settled raiyat who has been in possession of the land for a long time and has been paying rent to the landlord is entitled to the benefit of Section 24 of the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913, which grants occupancy right.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court were set aside, and those of the trial court were restored.
JUDGMENT :
Ahmad, C.J. - The substantial question that falls for consideration in this case is whether the Plaintiff who is the Appellant here is a raiyat as defined in Section 5 of the Orissa Tenancy Act 1913. It has been conceded before me on behalf of the Respondents that in case it is found that at the relevant time the Plaintiff was a raiyat of the lands in suit, the suit as framed has to be decreed and the appeal, allowed. But in case it is found that he was not a raiyat then the suit and the appeal both have to be dismissed.
2. The lands in suit covering an area of 4.92 acres fall in village Chandiagarh. Out of it, 2.15. acres appertain to plot No. 281 of Khata No. 266, .51 acre appertains to plot t Nos. 35 and 36 of khata No. 276, 1.52 acres appertain to plot No. 950 of khata No. 56, and 1.14 acres appertain to plot No. 951 of khata No. 56. This village Chandiagarh originally formed part of the Aul Estate which vested in the State of Orissa under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act with effect from 1-4-1954. The lands in suit were formerly the tenancy holding of two raiyats Krishna Chandra Sarangi and Bhagaban Mandal. It appears that in the year 1925-26 this village Chandiagarh was in possession of the Rani of Aul as tenure-holder and these two tenants had defaulted in payment of rent. Accordingly certain certificate proceedings were taken against those tenants and in due course their holdings were got auction sold. In that auction sale they were purchased by the Rani herself. The claim of the Plaintiff is that subsequently these lands were settled with him orally by delivery of possession and as such he remained in possession thereof till sometime May 1957 or 1958. In the meantime it is stated that there was a proceeding taken by Defendants 1 to 3 u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure against some third parties. These proceedings were ultimately decided on 19-12-1955 in favour of Defendants 1 to 3 and in view of the order passed in that proceeding they forcibly disposed the Plaintiff, sometime thereafter. Hence the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of these lands, which was instituted on 17-5-195S. In the plaint 5 persons have been impleaded as Defendants. Defendants 1 to 3 are the main contesting Defendants. The plea set up in defence on their behalf is that these lands were settled with them by the Raja of Aul sometime in the year 195 and as such they have been in possession thereof uptill now. They have strongly challenged the claim of the Plaintiff that he had ever been the settled raiyat of the village or the occupancy raiyat of the lands in suit. Accordingly it has been prayed on their behalf that the suit as constituted should be dismissed. So far as Defendants 4 and 5 are concerned, they are the Tahasildar and the Collector of the area wherein these lands in dispute fall. They have supported the case of Defendants 1 to 3 but have not very seriously taken any interest in the case.
3. Both the Courts below have concurrently found (1) that the Plaintiff is a settled raiyat of the village as defined in Section 23 of the Orissa Tenancy Act, and (2) that the Plaintiff had been in possession of the lands in suit till he was dispossessed therefrom in the year 1957 or 158 and had paid rent all along to the Aul Estate till the same was vested in the State of Orissa. They have however differed on the question whether the Plaintiff at the relevant time was the raiyat of the lands in suit or not. According to the trial Court the Plaintiff at the relevant time was the raiyat of the lands in suit or not. According to the trial Court the Plaintiff was a raiyat of the lands in suit during the time was in possession thereof and as such by virtue of Section 24 of the Orissa Tenancy Act acquired occupancy right therein. Accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. This last finding of the trial Court has been reversed by the lower appellate court. The conclusion come to by the lower appell
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
