1954 Supreme(Ori) 101

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Panigrahi, Rao, JJ.
P. RAMAMNRTI AND OTHERS - APPELLANT
Versus
DHUBA AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. - RESPONDENT
O.J.C. Nos. 3, 4, 18, 19, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 33, 54, 55, 61, 62, 63, 68, 69 and 100 of 1953
Decided On : 29-09-1954

Proceedings under the Agency Tracts Interest and Land Transfer Act, 1917, are judicial proceedings triable by a Civil Court.

Headnote:

AGENCY TRACTS INTEREST AND LAND TRANSFER ACT, 1917 - JURISDICTION OF SPECIAL ASSISTANT AGENT - REPEAL OF AGENCY RULES AND GANJAM AND VIZAGAPATAM ACT - INTRODUCTION OF BENGAL, ASSAM AND AGRA CIVIL COURTS ACT - SUIT OR EXECUTIVE ORDER - SAVING CLAUSE - COSTS.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, non-hillmen, challenged the validity of certain proceedings initiated under the Agency Tracts Interest and Land Transfer Act, 1917 (Madras Act I of 1917), pending before the Special Assistant Agent, Rayaghada, in Koraput district. The opposite parties were hillmen who had transferred their lands in favor of the petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest. The main issue was whether the introduction of the Bengal, Arga and Assam Civil Courts Act of 1887 (XII of 1887) in Koraput district deprived the Special Assistant Agent of his jurisdiction to entertain the petitions filed by the opposite party.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the proceedings under the Agency Tracts Interest and Land Transfer Act, 1917, were judicial proceedings triable by a Civil Court and that the jurisdiction of the Agency Divisional Officer to try them consequently remained unaffected by Orissa Regulation V of 1951. The Court further held that the proceedings pending before the Agency Courts were clearly without jurisdiction and were liable to be quashed on that ground. The Court also held that the State should be made liable for the costs of the petitions as the Government had encouraged frivolous litigation and caused much harassment to the petitioners.

Issues: 1. Whether the introduction of the Bengal, Arga and Assam Civil Courts Act of 1887 (XII of 1887) in Koraput district deprived the Special Assistant Agent of his jurisdiction to entertain the petitions filed by the opposite party. 2. Whether the proceedings under the Agency Tracts Interest and Land Transfer Act, 1917, were judicial proceedings triable by a Civil Court. 3. Whether the State should be made liable for the costs of the petitions.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the proceedings under the Agency Tracts Interest and Land Transfer Act, 1917, were judicial proceedings triable by a Civil Court. The Court relied on the fact that the Act contemplated suits, decrees and orders, and appeals against decrees and orders. The Court also noted that the word 'decree' had been defined in the Agency Rules as including orders passed under certain rules, and that the word 'suit' had been defined in the Code of Civil Procedure as including any proceeding in a Court of Justice to enforce a demand. 2. The Court held that the proceedings pending before the Agency Courts were clearly without jurisdiction and were liable to be quashed on that ground. The Court noted that Orissa Regulation V of 1951, which repealed the Orissa Agency Rules and the Ganjam and Vizagapatam Act of 1839, contained a saving clause which provided that any such investigation, any legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, as if this Act had not been passed. However, the Court held that this saving clause did not warrant the continuance of these proceedings in the Agency Courts which owed their origin to the Ganjam and Vizagapatam Act and have now ceased to exist. 3. The Court held that the State should be made liable for the costs of the petitions as the Government had encouraged frivolous litigation and caused much harassment to the petitioners. The Court noted that the Government had issued instructions to their officers to take action against persons who had acquired title to lands by prescription, even though such action was barred by the limitation period. The Court also noted that the Government had appointed a Special Government Pleader to conduct these cases on behalf of the hillmen.

Final Decision: The Court ordered that the proceedings in the pending cases be quashed as being without jurisdiction. The Court also ordered that the orders passed in certain cases imposing fines be set aside. The Court further ordered that the State should pay the costs of the petitioners in the High Court as well as in the Court below.