IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S. Chatterji, R.K. Patra, JJ.
CHAINI DAS AND OTHERS - APPELLANT
Versus
KANHAI CHARAN SWAIN AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Original Jurisdiction Case No. 164 of 1990
Decided On : 26-04-1995
ORISSA CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS AND PREVENTION OF FRAGMENTATION OF LAND ACT, 1972 - SECTION 51 - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - SECTION 8 - ORISSA ESTATES ABOLITION ACT, 1951 - SECTIONS 6, 7, 8 - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - CONTINUITY OF TENANCY - SETTLEMENT OF RIGHT - LIMITATION - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the impugned order of the Commissioner of Consolidation, Bhubaneswar, which confirmed the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kendrapara, rejecting their claim for settlement of certain disputed lands in their names. The revisional authority held that the petitioners had not filed any claim under the provisions of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act after vesting and that the suit-land could not be recorded in their names on the basis of anterior title.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the revisional authority had erred in its decision. It held that the petitioners' claim was not barred by the provisions of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act and that the revisional authority had failed to consider the effect of the settlement, the nature of the documents on which the claim and counter-claim were based, and the proper application of Sections 6, 7, and 8 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners' claim was barred by the provisions of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act? 2. Whether the revisional authority had erred in its decision?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the petitioners' claim was not barred by the provisions of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. It held that Sections 6, 7, and 8 of the Act provided for the incidences of tenancy after vesting of the right of the intermediary in the State. It held that the revisional authority had failed to consider the effect of the settlement, the nature of the documents on which the claim and counter-claim were based, and the proper application of Sections 6, 7, and 8 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ application, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the revisional authority for fresh consideration.
JUDGMENT :
S. Chatterji, J. - The present writ application at the instance of the petitioners Chaini Das and two others challenges the impugned order dated 8th June, 1989 in revision made by the Commissioner of Consolidation, Bhubaneswar in R. C. No. 509 of 1989 arising out of the orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kendrapara dated 4-2-1989 in Appeal Case No. 282 of 1987 u/s 12 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as of 'the Act') confirming the common order dated 6-11-1987 relating to village Pokhariapada under Pattamundai police station in Objection Case Nos. 51, 52 and 53 of 1983. The revision u/s 36 of the Act refers to certain salient facts in as much as the disputed lands were recorded in the name of Sri Gopinath Jew marfat Lokanath Das and Ors.. It is recorded that one Sunakar Das, successor of Raghunath Das and Dadhiram Das son of Chhayadhar Das by registered deeds of lease dated 7-2-1959 and 14-1-1961 leased out a portion of the suit land permanently in the name of one Sudarsan Sarangi who by registered sale deed dated 23-9-1961 transferred a portion of the suit land to one Paramananda Khandai. Such details of transfer have been referred to and dealt with. The revisional authority having considered the facts of the case and the orders of the authorities below observed that the opposite parties have admitted that the heirs and legal representatives of the recorded marfatdars have not filed any claim under the previsions of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act after vesting The property has not yet been settled either in the same of the deity or in the name of the marfatdars. By referring to a decision reported in 1967 CLT 655 (Narasingha Charan Rai and Anr. v. Radhagobinda Dev and Ors.) and Kanaka Barikani Vs. Chandra Sekhar Mahaprabhu and Others the revisional authority concluded that an intermediary has no right to maintain a suit after vesting without working out the remedies available under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. Upon the aforesaid premises, it has been found that the claim of the opposite parties before the consolidation authorities is in the nature of a suit as the same involves determination of right, title and interest over the suit land. Thus a conclusion has been drawn as if the opposite parties having not filed any claim for settlement of the suit land after vesting under the provisions of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, it must be held that the stand taken by the opposite parties is not sustainable and the suit-land cannot be recorded in the same of the opposite parties on the basis of anterior title. This conception appears to be thoroughly misconceived. Title is never extinguished unless it is determined in accordance with law. Section 6 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 lays down that with effect from the date of vesting, all homesteads comprised in an estate and being in the possession of an intermediary on the date of such vesting, and such buildings or structures together with the lands which they stand, other than any buildings, used primarily as offices or kutcheries or rest houses for estate servants on duty as were in the possession of an intermediary at the commencement of this Act and used as golas (other than golas used primarily for storing rent in kind), factories or mills for the purpose of trade, manufacture or commerce, or used for storing grains or keeping cattle or implements for the purpose of agriculture and constructed or established and used for the aforesaid purpose before the 1st day of January, 1948, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act be deemed to be settled by the Government with such intermediary and with all the share-holders owning the estate who shall be entitled to retain possession of such homesteads or such buildings or structures together with the lands on which they stand, as tenants under the State Government subject to the payment of such fair a
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.