Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Rao, Mohapatra, JJ.
P.V. NARAYAN RAO - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER - RESPONDENT
O.J.C. No. 220 of 1954
Decided On : 27-04-1956
ESTATE - DEFINITION - INAM VILLAGE - RECOGNITION BY BRITISH GOVERNMENT - MADRAS ESTATES LAND ACT, 1908 (MADRAS ACT) - SECTION 3(2)(D) - ORISSA ESTATES ABOLITION ACT, 1951 (ABOLITION ACT) - SECTION 2(G) - VALIDITY OF AMENDMENTS - CONFISCATION OF KUDIW ARAM RIGHTS - COMPENSATION - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ARTICLE 226 - ARTICLE 81(4).
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the vesting of their villages in the State Government under the Abolition Act, contending that their villages were not 'estates' within the meaning of the Act and that the amendments to the Madras Act and the Abolition Act were confiscatory and invalid.
Finding of the Court:
1. The village in O.J.C. 220/54 was an 'estate' within the meaning of Section 3(2)(d) of the Madras Act as amended by Orissa Act XVII of 1947, as the Inam grant was recognized by the British Government through G.O. No. 2298 dated 28th October 1862. 2. The amendments to the Madras Act and the Abolition Act were not confiscatory as they aimed to regulate the relationship between landlord and tenant and provided for compensation under Sections 185-A and 185-B of the Madras Act and Section 7 of the Abolition Act. 3. The neglect of the Executive Government in not constituting a Tribunal or prescribing rules under Section 185-A of the Madras Act did not render the impugned provisions invalid, as the parties affected could seek remedies in competent Courts.
Issues: 1. Whether the villages in question were 'estates' within the meaning of the Madras Act and the Abolition Act. 2. Whether the amendments to the Madras Act and the Abolition Act were confiscatory and invalid. 3. Whether the neglect of the Executive Government in not constituting a Tribunal or prescribing rules under Section 185-A of the Madras Act rendered the impugned provisions invalid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the village in O.J.C. 220/54 was an 'estate' within the meaning of Section 3(2)(d) of the Madras Act as amended by Orissa Act XVII of 1947, as the Inam grant was recognized by the British Government through G.O. No. 2298 dated 28th October 1862. The Court relied on the Madras Regulation XXXI of 1802 and the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue, Madras, to conclude that undisturbed enjoyment of 50 years, with or without Sanad, would be treated as an Inam possessed under a valid title. 2. The Court held that the amendments to the Madras Act and the Abolition Act were not confiscatory as they aimed to regulate the relationship between landlord and tenant and provided for compensation under Sections 185-A and 185-B of the Madras Act and Section 7 of the Abolition Act. The Court referred to the decision of the Privy Council in AIR 1946 127 (Privy Council) to support its conclusion that the Provincial Legislatures had the competence to legislate on matters related to landlord-tenant relationships and that such legislation could not be considered confiscatory. 3. The Court held that the neglect of the Executive Government in not constituting a Tribunal or prescribing rules under Section 185-A of the Madras Act did not render the impugned provisions invalid, as the parties affected could seek remedies in competent Courts. The Court relied on Article 81(4) of the Constitution to support its conclusion that the neglect of the Executive Government could not invalidate the legislation.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed both petitions with costs, holding that the villages in question were 'estates' within the meaning of the Madras Act and the Abolition Act, that the amendments to these Acts were not confiscatory, and that the neglect of the Executive Government in not constituting a Tribunal or prescribing rules under Section 185-A of the Madras Act did not render the impugned provisions invalid.
JUDGMENT :
Mohapatra, J. - These are petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for appropriate Writs in the following circumstances:
O.J.C. 220/54: The present Petitioner files this petition on his own behalf and on behalf of his two brothers for whom he holds a power of attorney. The village concerned is of the name Bodamohiri in Kudala Taluk in the district of Ganjam which is also a part of the ex-Athagada zamindary. This village along with several others was not included in the San ad granted to the Zamindar of Athagada in 1804 and the Zamindar of Athagada executed a Kabuliyat excluding all lakhiraj lands. Accordingly 77 jagir villages including village Bodamohiri were excluded from the assets of the Athagada zamindary and only Kattubai due from them was included. In 1854 the zamindary of Athagada was sold for arrears of revenue and eventually was purchased by the Raja of Khallikote. Before the auction sale, the defaulting zamindar of Athagada had however acquired, by purchase or otherwise, 50 out of the said 77 jagir villages, and, even after sale, the Zamindar of Athagada claimed the income of these villages which he had purchased on the ground that only the right to Kattubadi thereof had passed to the purchaser under the auction sale. The Madras Government held that the 77 jagir villages were reserved at the time of the Permanent Settlement and the 50 villages acquired by the ex-Raja of Athagada did not pass to the auction purchaser. The Government exercised their right of resumption in respect of the said 50 villages and re-granted them to the Raja of Khallikote on payment of an additional revenue of Rs. 5000/-. The rest of the 27 villages however remained with the original grantee and their successors and the present village Bodamohiri is one of the said 27 villages The Madras Government by their G. O. No. 2298 dated 28th October, 1862 waived their reversionary claim on the ground of expediency and grace and issued distinct instructions to the In am Commissioner not to interfere with the said 27 villages. The present Petitioner's ancestor purchased this village by a registered sale-deed dated 26th February 1887. Under the provisions of the Orissa Estates, Abolition Act, 1951 (Act I of 1952), hereinafter called the Abolition Act, the Government of Orissa issued Notification dated 1st July 1954 vesting the present village in the Government and served notice upon the present Petitioner to deliver possession. The Petitioner, therefore: invokes our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the notification vesting the village in the Government and to issue a Writ of Mandamus against the Government not to take delivery of possession on the ground that this is not an 'estate' within the meaning of Section 2 of the Abolition Act.
2. The main question is whether this village is an 'estate' within the meaning of Section 3(2) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 (hereinafter called the Madras Act) as amended by the Orissa Act No. XVII of 1947. Even though the villages were admittedly described as jagir villages, the learned Advocate-General very fairly conceded that the concerned village was, not an estate within the meaning of Section 3(2)(c) of the Madras Act, but within the meaning of Section 3(2)(d) which runs as follows:
any inam village of which the grant has been made confirmed or recognised by the British Government notwithstanding that subsequent to the grant, the village has been partitioned among the grantees or the successors in title of the grantee or grantees.
"Explanation- (1) Where a grant a, an inam is expressed, to be of a named village, the area which forms the subject matter of the grant shall be deemed to be an estate notwithstanding that it did not include certain lands in the village of that name which have already been granted on service or other tenure or been reserved for communal purposes."
Indeed the present village was not the subject matter of any grant mad by the British Go
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
