SHINGHAL - (1.) MAGUNI Charan Dwivedi, the appellant, filed a title suit in the Court of Munsif, Sundargarh against the State of Orissa, for declaration of his title and recovery of possession of plot No. 99 measuring 3.80 acres in khata No. 89 of village Mahulpali claiming it as his "ganju bhogra" land. The suit was decreed on 14/10/1958, in respect of 3.45 acres. The defendant State of Orissa, did not file an appeal and the decree became final. Decree-holder Dwivedi applied for its execution. The case was transferred to the court of the Subordinate Judge of Sundargarh. An objection was taken there by the Notified Area Council, Rourkela, respondent No.2, hereinafter referred to as the Council, under Section 37 and 38 and Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that it was in actual physical possession of the land. The objection application was however rejected by the execution court on 31/03/1965. The Council applied for revision of the order of rejection, but its application was dismissed with the observation that the Council might file a regular suit for adjudication of its right if it so desired. No suit was filed by the Council and decree-holder Dwivedi filed an application on Se 5/09/1966 for proceeding with the execution of his decree. The Council and the State then made an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that the decree was not executable because the Orissa Merged Territories (Village Offices Abolition) Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as the Act, had come into force in the area on 1/04/1966, and the "bhogra land" in question had vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The Subordinate Judge upheld that objection and dismissed the execution application.
(2.) DECREE-holder Dwivedi felt aggrieved, and filed an appeal which was heard by Additional District Judge, Sundargarh, who held by his order dated 2/05/1970 that the decree was executable. He therefore set aside the order of the execution court and the State of Orissa and the Council went up in appeal to the High Court. The High Court held that as the decree-holder was not in actual physical possession of the land the tenure had vested in the State free from all encumbrances under Section 3 of the Act, the decree was "rendered not est", and the Collector could not settle the land with him under Section 5 of the Act. It, therefore, allowed the appeal by its impugned judgment dated 4/11/1974, and ordered that the decree-holder could not executed the decree. He applied for and obtained special leave, and has filed the present appeal. It is not in dispute before us that the appellant held the "Village Office" within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of the Act. It is also not in dispute that it was in that capacity that he held the "bhogra land" in question by way of emoluments of his office. Moreover it is not in dispute that the appellant's village office stood abolished in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 (a) of the Act. The consequences of the abolition have been stated in cls. (a) to (g) of Section 3. It will be sufficient for us to say, for purposes of the present controversy, that as a result of the abolition of the office, all incidents of the appellant's service tenure, e.g., the right to hold the "bhogra land" stood extinguished by virtue of the provisions of cl. (b) of Section 3, and all settlements, sanads and all grants in pursuance of which the tenure was being held by the appellant stood cancelled under Section 3 (c). The right of the appellant to receive the emoluments was also deemed to have been terminated under cl. (d), and by virtue of cl. (f) his "bhogra land' stood resumed and "vested abosolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances." Section 3 of the Act in fact expressly provided that this would be the result, notwithstanding anything in any law, usage, settlement, grant, sanad or order or "in any judgment, decree or order of a Court". All these conseqeunces therefore ensued with effect from 1/04/1965 when, as has been stated, the Act came into force in the area with which we are concerned. There can be no doubt therefore that from that date appellant Dwivedi suffered from these and the other disabilities enumerated in Section 3 of the Act, the "bhogra land" in respect of which he obtained the decree dated 14/10/1958 declaring his title and upholding his right to possession, was, therefore lost to him as it vested "absolutely" in the State Government free from all encumbrances. The decree for possession also thus lost its efficacy by virtue of the express provisions of the Act referred to above, and there is nothing wrong if the High Court has held that it was rendered incapable of execution by operation of the law. Section 5 of the Act deals with the settlement of the resumed "bhogra land" and has been the subject matter of controversy before us. It provides as follows: "5. Settlement of Bhogra lands:- (1) All Bhogra lands resumed under the provisions of this Act shall subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) be settled with rights of occupancy therein on a fair and equitable rent with the holder of the Village Office or with him and all those other persons, if any, who may be in the enjoyment of the land or any part thereof as his co-sharers or as tenants under him or under such co-sharer to the extent that each such person was in separate and actual cultivating possession of the same immediately before the appointed date. (2) The total area of such land in possession of each such person shall be subject to a reservation of a certain fraction thereof in favour of the Grama Sasan within whose limits the land is situate and the extent of such reservation shall be determined in the following manner, namely:- JUDGEMENT_134_2_1976Html1.htm Provided that the area reserved shall, as far as practicable, be in compact block or blocks of one acre or more." (Emphasis added) It would appear that once a "bhogra land" stood resumed and vested absolutely in the State Government to the exclusion of the village officer concerned, it was required to be "settled", with rights of occupancy thereunder, with the erstwhile holder of the village office, or with him and all those other persons, if any, who may be in enjoyment of the land or any part thereof as his co-sharer to the extent that each such person was in separate and actual cultivating possession of the same immediately before the date appointed for the coming into force of the Act. The settlement of the land contemplated by Section 5 had therefore to be with the holder of the village office and the other persons who were enjoying it (or part of it) as his cosharers or as tenants under him or his co-sharers, but that was to be so on the condition that "each such person" namely, the holder of the village office and his co-sharers or the tenants under the holder of the office or his co-sharers, was in "separate and actual cultivating possession" of the land immediately before 1/04/1966. There is nothing in sub-section (1) of Section 5 to justify the argument of Mr. Pathak that we should so interpret the words "each such person" as to exclude the holder of the village office from its purview. In fact the same words occur in sub-section (2) of Section 5 as well, which deals with the question of reservation of a fraction of the "bhogra land" in favour of Grama Sasan, and Mr. Pathak has not found it possible to argue that the land in possession of the holder of the village office was immune from the liability to such fractional reservation. We have no doubt therefore that in order to be entitled to the settlement contemplated by sub-section (1) of Section 5, the village officer or the other persons mentioned in the sub-section had to be in "separate and actual cultivating possession" immediately before the appointed date.
(3.) IT has also been argued by Mr. Pathak that the provisions of Section 3 of the Act were subject to the provisions of Section 5, and that the High Court committed an error in losing sight of that requirement of the law. He has urged that if Section 3 had been read as suggested by him, it would have been found that, in spite of the resumption and vesting of the "bhogra land" under Section 3, the appellant's right to possess the "bhogra land" in question continued to subsist so long as it was not converted into a right of occupancy under sub-section (1) of Section 5. Counsel has gone on to argue that the appellant was, therefore, entitled to ignore any trespass on his possession of the "bhogra land" and to ask for execution of the decree for possession against the respondents as they were mere trespassers and were not co-sharers or tenants within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 5. Reference in this connection has been made to Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, twelfth edition, p.86, where it has been stated that it is necessary to interpret the words of the statute so as to give the meaning "which best suits the scope and object of the statute." IT has been argued that grave injustice would otherwise result for, by a mere act of trespass committed on the eve of the coming into force of the Act, a village officer would lose the right of settlement of his "bhogra land" under sub-section (1) of Section 5. IT has also been argued that the words "each such person" occurring in that sub-section do not include the holder of the village office himself, so that it was not necessary for him to show that he was in separate and actual cultivating possession of his "bhogra land". Reliance for this proposition has been placed on a bench decision of the High Court of Orissa in State of Orissa v. Rameswar Patabisi (Civil Revn. Petn. No. 257 of 1974 decided on 27-6-1975) and on Meharbansingh v. Nareshsingh, (1970), 3 SCR 18 . As will appear, there is no force in this argument. Section 3 of the Act expressly provides for the abolition of village offices under the Act, and the consequences of such abolition. We have made a reference to cls. (a), (b) (c), (d) and (f) of that section, and we have no doubt that the consequences stated in the section in regard to the abolition of village offices, the extinction of the incidents of the service tenures, cancellation of the settlement and sanads etc. creating those offices, termination of the right to receive any emoluments for the offices, the resumption and vesting of the "bhogra lands" free from all encumbrances ensued "with effect from and on the appointed date" and were not put off until after the settlement provided for in sub-s. (1) of Section 5 had been made. Section 3 in fact expressly made provision for those consequences and there is no justification for the argument that they remained suspended or were put off until occupancy rights were settled on the persons concerned. As has been stated, sub-section (1) of Section 5 deals with the settlement of such lands with rights of occupancy, with the holder of the village office or with him and the other persons, if any, referred to in the sub-section, but such settlement was required to be made as a result of the consequences referred to in S. 3 and not otherwise. It is therefore futile to contend that the appellant did not suffer from those consequences merely because the "bhogra land" claimed by him and not been settled with rights of occupancy under sub-section (1) of Sec. 5 because it was the subject-matter of the decree which had not been executed.;