SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1970 Supreme(Ori) 148

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
R.N. Misra, J.
BANO BIBI - APPELLANT
Versus
ORISSA BOARD OF WAKFS AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Second Appeal No. 110 of 1967
Decided On : 09-12-1970

Advocates Appeared:
L.K. Dasgupta and J.K. Misra, for the Appellant; Sk. Rahenoma and B.C. Das, for the Respondent

The provisions of the Orissa Tenancy Act do not apply to land situated within the municipal limits of Cuttack.

Headnote:

WAKF - LEASE - VALIDITY - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 236 OF ORISSA TENANCY ACT - LIMITATION - ARTICLE 134-A AND 134-B OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1908.

Fact of the Case:

The Orissa Board of Wakfs filed a suit for ejectment against the Defendant No. 1 from a homestead within the outer compound of the Kadam Rasool located in the town of Cuttack. The Defendant No. 1 claimed to have acquired non-evictable occupancy right in respect of the disputed property. The trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the disputed property was not the Wakf property and that Section 236 of the Orissa Tenancy Act applied. The lower appellate Court reversed the decree and directed the Plaintiff to recover possession by evicting the Defendant No. 1 from the premises.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the disputed property was the Wakf property and that Section 236 of the Orissa Tenancy Act did not apply. The Court also held that the suit was not barred by limitation as Article 134-A of the Limitation Act, 1908 applied.

Issues: 1. Whether the disputed property was the Wakf property? 2. Whether Section 236 of the Orissa Tenancy Act applied? 3. Whether the suit was barred by limitation?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the disputed property was the Wakf property on the basis of the record of rights (Ext. 3). 2. The Court held that Section 236 of the Orissa Tenancy Act did not apply as the land was situated within the municipal limits of Cuttack and the provisions of the Act were not applicable to such land. 3. The Court held that the suit was not barred by limitation as Article 134-A of the Limitation Act, 1908 applied. The Court rejected the contention that Article 134-B of the Limitation Act, 1908 applied as there had been no death, resignation or removal of the lessors.

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, reversed the decree of the lower appellate Court and directed that the suit should stand dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

R.N. Misra, J. - The Defendant is in appeal against a reversing decision of the learned Fifth Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack in a suit for ejectment against the Appellants brought by the Orissa Board of Wakfs from a homestead within the outer compound of the Kadam Rasool located in the town of Cuttack.

2. The Defendants 2 to 2 (d) were, the ad-matwalis of the wakf the Kadam Rasool and the Defendants 2(e) to 2(g) are members of the committee set up by the District Judge of Cuttack according to the provisions of Act 20 of 1863. In 1948, the Matwalis admitted the Defendant No. 1 into tenancy for residential purposes in respect of the disputed property. The wakf Board came into existence some time in March, 1961 under the provisions of the Wakfs Act of 1954. On 14th July, 1962 the present suit was instituted by the Board for the ejectment of the Defendant No. 1 from the lease-bold on the contention that the lease created in her favour was illegal, unauthorised, inoperative and did not bind the Board of Wakfs. From the plaint it appears that the Defendant No. 1 bad been called upon to show cause as to why she may not be evicted and she came up with an explanation that she had taken lease of a ditch and with enormous expenditure improved it and bad ultimately set up a house. The Board was, however, not satisfied with the explanation and as the location of a residential house within the Kadam Rasool itself was vitiating the religious atmosphere and was therefore, against the interest of the Wakf, the suit was instituted pursuant to the decision of the Plaintiff. Board taken on 1-2-1962.

3. Two sets of written statements were filed one by the Defendant No. 1 Appellant and the other by the Darogas (Mutwalis). The Defendant No. 1 contended that the property belonged to the Darogas and not to the Wakf itself, having been set apart for their maintenance. It was further alternatively contended that the land was lying fallow as useless; for the benefit of the Kadam Rasool, the lease was granted and after taking permission of the Municipal authorities, the Defendant No. 1 raised the construction and has, been residing there already for more than 15 years prior to the institution of the suit. The Defendant No. 1 claimed to have acquired non-evictable occupancy right in respect of the disputed property.

The Darogas pleaded that the alienation was not illegal, the lease is not against the interest of the Wakf in any manner; the lease had been granted for the interest of the Kadam Rasool and the institution has indeed benefited by the lease the disputed property being located beyond the inner compound which contains the main shrine of the Kadam Rasool, the residential use by the Defendant No. 1 does not interfere with the religious activities. A claim also made that the lands including the disputed property which are located between the inner compound and the outer compound of the Kadam Rasool are Madat Mash lands of the Darogas and they have hereditary right of enjoyment thereto. It was also pleaded that the disputed property was a ditch and water from the Cuttack Jail compound which flowed into it ultimately proved to be a nuisance. The Defendant No. 1 who undertook to fill up the ditch in order to have the nuisance abated has done so at enormous expenditure and has also raised a house. The waste and unproductive land which had hitherto become a nuisance to the Wakf and in fact was interfering with the religiousness of the Kadam Rasool has been rendered useful and thus the process of leasing out was a beneficial one for the Wakf. The Plaintiff was thus not entitled to ejectment.

4. The learned trial Judge found: (1) the Plaintiff failed to establish that the disputed property was the Wakf property of the Kadam Rasool endowment; (2) the disputed property was an agricultural holding and the Defendant No. 1 was protected from eviction u/s 236 of the Orissa Tenancy Act; (3) applying the provisions of the Public Wakf (Extension of Limi


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top