Back
1955 Supreme(Ori) 74
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Panigrahi, Rao, JJ.
RAJA BHANUGANGA TRIBHUBAN DEB AND ANOTHER - APPELLANT
Versus
THE STATE OF ORISSA AND THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND SUB. DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Decided On : 01-12-1955
K. Patnaik, for the Appellant; Adv.-General, D. Sahu and B.P. Das, for the Respondent
Orders passed by unauthorized or incompetent officers are void and cannot stand.
Headnote:
ORISSA MERGED STATES' (LAWS) ACT, 1950 - SECTION 7(H) - FIXATION OF FAIR AND EQUITABLE RENT AND GRANT OF OCCUPANCY RIGHTS - COMPETENT AUTHORITY - JURISDICTION - VALIDITY OF ORDERS PASSED BY UNAUTHORIZED OFFICERS - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT OF NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY BOARD OF REVENUE - LEGALITY OF ORDERS - QUASHING OF ORDERS.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners, ex-Rulers of Bamra and Khandapara States, challenged the validity of the Orissa Merged States' (Laws) Act, 1950, and the proceedings thereunder, which resulted in the fixation of fair and equitable rent and the conferment of occupancy rights on certain lands claimed by the Petitioners as their private properties. The Petitioners contended that the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officers and the Deputy Collector, who were not the competent authorities appointed under the Act, were void and without jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the fair and equitable rent was not fixed by the competent authority appointed by the Revenue Commissioner, but by the Deputy Collector or Sub-Collector in the case of Bamra and by the Deputy Collector, Khandapara, in the case of Khandapara. The Court also found that the occupancy rights were conferred by orders of officers who had no jurisdiction to do so.
Issues: 1. Whether the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officers and the Deputy Collector, who were not the competent authorities appointed under the Act, were void and without jurisdiction. 2. Whether the subsequent notification issued by the Board of Revenue, purporting to appoint the Sub-Divisional Officers as the competent authority, could cure the defect in the proceedings and validate the prior illegal orders.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officers and the Deputy Collector, who were not the competent authorities appointed under the Act, were void and without jurisdiction. The Court relied on the provisions of Section 7(h) of the Act, which required the Revenue Commissioner to appoint the competent authority to fix fair and equitable rent and grant occupancy rights. The Court found that the Revenue Commissioner had appointed the District Magistrates (District Collectors) as the competent authority, and therefore, the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officers and the Deputy Collector were illegal and void. 2. The Court also held that the subsequent notification issued by the Board of Revenue, purporting to appoint the Sub-Divisional Officers as the competent authority, could not cure the defect in the proceedings and validate the prior illegal orders. The Court found that the notification was issued after the Petitioners had filed their applications challenging the validity of the orders, and therefore, it could not be given retrospective effect to validate the prior illegal proceedings.
Final Decision: The Court allowed both the applications filed by the Petitioners and quashed the orders passed fixing fair and equitable rents and conferring occupancy rights. The Court also directed the Government to refrain from taking any action under the orders passed fixing rents and conferring occupancy rights.
JUDGMENT :
Rao, J. - These two petition's are heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment as they raise common questions of law and similar questions of fact.
2. O.J.C. 113/54 is filed by Raja Bhanuganga Deb, ex-Ruler of Bamra State and O.J.C. 128/54 is filed by Harihar Singh Mardaraj Bhramarbar Ray, ex-Ruler of Khandapara State. In both the applications, the Petitioners pray for the issue of appropriate writs quashing the proceeding under the Orissa Merged States' (Laws) Act, 1950, in respect of the State Khamar lands before the Sub. Divisional Officers, as the provisions of the Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act, 1950 and the orders passed and actions taken thereunder by the Sub-Divisional Officers are ultra vires, void and without jurisdiction and to issue writs directing the Sub-Divisional Officers to forebear from taking any further action giving occupancy rights, fixing rents and issuing pattas to any person in respect of the lands which are declared to be private properties of the Petitioners in the merged States.
The main allegations of the Petitioners in their respective applications are as follows.
3. The Petitioners are the ex-Rulers of Bamra and Khandapara States which were Feudatory States and which acceded to the Dominion of India after the Indian independence. There was an agreement executed between the Governor-General of India and the Petitioners in each application whereby the latter ceded to the Dominion of India, and agreed to transfer the administration of his State to the Dominion Government from 1st January, 1948. In Article 3 of the said agreement it was stipulated as follows:
The Raja shall be entitled to full ownership, use and enjoyment of all private properties as distinct from State properties, belonging to him on the date of this agreement.
In pursuance of the said agreement, it was decided by the Government what were the respective personal properties and the State properties and the adviser for the Orissa States forwarded a list of the Petitioners' private properties which had been accepted by the Government of India. The Government of India issued also a memorandum stating illustratively some of the rights and privileges of the Rulers and the members of their family and expressed that the said rights and privileges and others not mentioned but existing, should be acceded to them according to the practice that prevailed before the 19th August, 1947. Under that practice which was prevailing, the full ownership, right, title and interest of the Ruler was not subject to any power Or authority. In paragraph 17 of that memorandum, it was also provided that the Jagir and personal properties of the Rulers should be free from all taxes and should be outside the land revenue jurisdiction of the Provincial Government, It was also mentioned that it was a matter for the Provincial Government to decide, but the Government of India felt that the ordinary land revenue laws should apply. By a subsequent letter from the Adviser for Orissa States to the Petitioners, the Khamar lands including the Abadi and Anabadi areas were specified as the personal properties of the Petitioners. The Petitioners were exercising their full right of ownership, use and enjoyment of all the aforesaid private properties, some by cultivating with the help of farm servants, some by hired labourers and some by engaging different tenants for different years for cultivation purposes. The Orissa Tenants Protection Act, 1948 was extended to the State of Bamra and Khandapara by Orissa Merged States (Laws) Ordinance, 1949 which was replaced by the Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act of 1950, on the 3rd of March, 1950; and this Act extended the operation of the several provincial Acts to the merged States which included the Orissa Tenants Protection Act. In or about 1952, a number of persons of Bamra applied to the Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of the Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act for granting occupancy rights to them and getting t
