Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
G.K. Misra, S.K. Ray, JJ.
UCHCHAB NARENDRA - APPELLANT
Versus
GOPINATH DEB AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
O.J.C. No. 175 of 1968
Decided On : 06-11-1969
LAND REFORMS - ORISSA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1950 - SIKIMI TENANT - OCCUPANCY RIGHTS - EVICTION - DECREE FOR EVICTION - EXECUTION - WRIT - WRIT OF CERTIORARI - QUASHING OF ORDERS.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, a Sikimi tenant under the opposite party, was recorded as a sikimi tenant in respect of 1.39 acres of land in sikimi Khatas Nos. 11 and 12 under Debottar Khata No. 6 of mouza Khajalbodha, in Baramba P.S. in the district of Cuttack. The rent was payable in kind. Opposite party No. 1 obtained a decree on 21-5-1965 for eviction of the Petitioner for non-payment of rent in Rent Suit No. 7 of 1961-62. Execution was levied on 11-12-1965 for recovery of possession in Execution Case No. 1 of 1965-66. On 1-10-1965, the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1950, (Orissa Act No. 16 of 1960-hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) excluding Chapters III and IV came into force. The Petitioner therefore took an objection in the Execution Case that the decree was not executable in view of Sections 3 and 8(1) of the Act. This objection was over-ruled by the executing Court and the first appellate authority on 6-5-1966 and 29-12-1967 respectively. Against the appellate order of the Additional District Magistrate over-ruling the objection in Revenue Appeal No. 2 of 1966, this writ application has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Petitioner was a raiyat within the meaning of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act and as such, was not evictable by virtue of the provisions in Sections 3 and 8(1) of the Act despite the decree for eviction passed against him on 21-5-1965. The Court further held that the impugned orders were liable to be quashed.
Issues: Whether the Petitioner was a raiyat within the meaning of Section 4(1)(a) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1950.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Petitioner was a raiyat within the meaning of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act on the following grounds: * The Petitioner held the disputed lands immediately before the commencement of the Act with rights of occupancy under a valid law in force in the ex-State of Baramba, which was kept alive after its merger, by paragraph 4 of the Administration of Orissa. States Order 1948. * The rights and liabilities of Sikimi tenants as prevalent in the ex-State of Baramba were recognized as early as 1903 and were re-produced in the settlement Report of 1924-25. * The Settlement Report clearly constituted the law of Baramba State or the customary law of the State having the force of law, by virtue of the aforesaid Order.
Final Decision: The Court issued a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders and allowed the writ application.
JUDGMENT :
G.K. Misra, C.J. - The Petitioner is recorded as a sikimi tenant under opposite party No. 1 in respect of 1.39 acres of land in sikimi Khatas Nos. 11 and 12 under Debottar Khata No. 6 of mouza Khajalbodha, in Baramba P.S. in the district of Cuttack. The rent, was payable in kind. Opposite party No. 1 obtained a decree on 21-5-1965 for eviction of the Petitioner for non-payment of rent in Rent Suit No. 7 of 1961-62. Execution was levied on 11-12-1965 for recovery of possession in Execution Case No. 1 of 1965-66. On 1-10-1965, the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1950, (Orissa Act No. 16 of 1960-hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) excluding Chapters III and IV came into force. The Petitioner therefore took an objection in the Execution Case that the decree was not executable in view of Sections 3 and 8(1) of the Act. This objection was over-ruled by the executing Court and the first appellate authority on 6-5-1966 and 29-12-1967 respectively. Against the appellate order of the Additional District Magistrate over-ruling the objection in Revenue Appeal No. 2 of 1966, this writ application has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
2. Mr. Das contends that the Petitioner is a raiyat u/s 4(1)(a) of the Act and as such, is not evictable by virtue of the provisions in Sections 3 and a(1) of the Act despite the decree for eviction passed against him on 21-5-1965. This necessitates an examination of the aforesaid provisions.
3. Sessions 3, 4(1) and a(1) of the Act may be extracted:
3. Save as otherwise provided the provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law, custom or usage or agreement, decree or order of Court.
4(1) The following persons shall be deemed to be raiyats for the purposes of this Act in respect of lands held by them, namely:
(a) persons holding lands immediately before the commencement of this Act or at any time thereafter with rights of occupancy under or within the meaning of any law for the time being in force.
a(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act and notwithstanding any contract, custom or usage or decree or order of any Court, a raiyat shall be liable to eviction only if he.
(a) has used the land comprised in a holding in a manner which renders it unfit for the purpose of agriculture; or
(b) has leased out the land in contravention of the provisions of Section 6 or has failed to cultivate the land personally; or
(c) has used the land for any purpose other than agriculture.
Explanation:-The construction of a house for the residence of the raiyat and his family members, together with all necessary outheuses, shall be for agricultural purposes.
4. If the Petitioner is a raiyat within the ambit of Section 4(1)(0), then certainly he is not liable for eviction by virtue of the provisions of Sections 3 and 8(1) despite the impugned decree for eviction. In other words, though opposite party No. 1 got a decree against the Petitioner for non-payment of rent such a decree would be inexecutable after the coming into force of Chapter II of the Act if the Petitioner is a raiyat. It is neither party's case that eviction is Bought against the Petitioner under any of the Clauses (a) to (c) of Section a(1).
5. The Bole question for consideration, therefore, is whether the Petitioner holds the disputed lands immediately before the commencement of this Act with rights of occupancy under or within the meaning of any law for the time being in force.
6. This leads to an examination of the law as prevailing in the ex-State of Baramba at the date of commencement of the Act.
Sri R.K. Ramadhyani J.C.S., was appointed Officer on Special Duty to report on the Land Tenures and the Revenue Systems in the Orissa and Chhattisgarh States. In volume III, at page 25, the revenue history and settlements of the ex-State of Baramba have been dealt with. In paragraph 11, at page 27, the following passage occurs:
There is no revenue law in the State of any kind. The Settlement
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
