P.C. SINGH Vs. PANU GAHU AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiff is the erstwhile Ruler of the ex -State of Hindol in the district of Dhenkanal. The disputed lands were his private lands on the date of the merger of that State with Orissa. Opposite party No. 1 is in cultivation of the disputed lands as a bhagchassi ever since the date of merger. On 9 -4 -1959 opposite party No. 1 made an application before the Sub -Divisional officer, Hindol (opposite party No. 3) praying for assessment of fair and equitable rent and declaration of his status as an occupancy raiyat under Section 7(h) of the Orissa merged States Laws Act 1950 (Orissa Act. 4 of 1950 - hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). On 5.5 -1959 there was publication of the assessment roll and record of rights under the Orissa Private Lands of Rulers (Assessment of Rent) Act, 1958 (Orissa Act, 13 of 19513 hereinafter to be referred to as the 1958 Act) for certain lands in village Ranjagala, of which the disputed lands form a part, in favour of the Plaintiff. In the patta the Plaintiff's name was included in the column 'Raiyat'. On 12 -11 -1963, the Sub -Divisional officer assessed fair and equitable rent in respect of the disputed land at Rs. 25.00 per acre. The same order was passed with regard to the other tenants in village Ranjagola. He directed that the Plaintiff would realise rent and cess and pay Rs. 190.00 to the Government for his lands in that village, in addition to cess of 54 Ps. Put of this amount the Plaintiff was to defray the collection expenses. The Sub -Divisional officer passed a separate order in Miscellaneous Case No. 101 of 195960 directing opposite party No. 1 to pay fair and equitable rent of Rs. 8.25 Ps. and cess of Rs. 2.09 Ps. to the Ruler; the Plaintiff was to pay Rs. 1.20 Ps. as rent and Rs. 2.09 Ps. to the Government. Against this order the Plaintiff filed 80 revision before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Northern Division. The revision was dismissed on 3.1 -1966. Against the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, this writ application has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, for issuing 80 writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the Sub -Divisional officer and the Revenue Divisional Commissioner.

(2.) MR . Pal for the Plaintiff contends that the opposite party No. 1 is not entitled to the protection of Section 7(h) of the Act, after the disputed lands ceased to be the private lands of the Ruler and were settled with the Plaintiff under the 1958 Act. This contention requires careful examination of the relevant provisions of the two Acts.

(3.) THE aforesaid conclusion appears to be irresistible on a reasonable construction of the relevant provisions of both the Acts.