KUMAR BIMAL CHANDRA SINHA DECEASED AND AFTER HIM INS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal on a certificate granted by the high Court of Orissa raises the question of the interpretation of certain provisions of The Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (Orissa Act I of 1952) -which hereinafter will be referred to as the Act. The appellants who were petitioners in the High Court were the proprietors of an estate known as Paikpara Estate, in the district of Puri, bearing Touzi Nos, 268, 269 and 270. The respondents are the State of Orissa and its officials.

(2.) The facts on which the High Court based its judgment under appeal are as follows. Within the said Paikpara Estate, there were several tenures and sub-proprietary interests. The Paikpara Estate vested in the State of Orissa by virtue of a notification issued under S. 3 of the Act, on August 23, 1953. It is common ground that the interests of tenure-holders and sub-proprietors within the said estate have not yet been taken over under the provisions of the Act. Under the tenure-holders aforesaid, there were some occupancy holdings which had been purchased by the proprietors, the appellants in this Court, long ago. Thus the proprietor by virtue of their purchase became occupany raiyats, under the tenure-holders or sub-proprietors, in respect of the holdings purchased by them. It is also common ground that in the last Settlement Khatians their interests as occupancy raiyats in respect of the holdings purchased by them have been recorded. On the lands of the occupancy holdings, there were several buildings which were used as Katcheri houses by the proprietors, for the administration of their estate. In January, 1954, according to the Petitioners in the High Court, the State officials took illegal possession of those buildings situate on the raiyati land, as aforesaid. The appellants thereupon made an application to the Collector of Puri for vacant possession of the lands and the buildings described in the petition, on the allegation that those lands together with the buildings purchased from tenants with rights of occupancy, were, after purchase by the proprietors, used as Katcheri house by them. They also alleged that those properties had not vested in the State of Orissa as a result of the said notification, under the Act. Part of the said house had been let out to the Postal Department. The Anchal Adhikari of that area wrote to the Postmaster, and Superintendent of Post Offices, not to pay rent to the proprietors. The Postal Department, therefore, vacated that portion of the building in their occupation, which has gone into the occupation of the State Government. Another portion of the property, which was used as dhangola was let out for Storing Paddy, to a third party. That dhangola was also taken illegal possession of by the Naib Tahsildar of the place. Other portions of the property also are in illegal possession of the State Government, through its Anchal Adhikari. It was thus claimed on behalf of the proprietors that the State Government had no right to take possession of the property as it did not form part of the estate which had been acquired under the Act, and had on notification, vested in the State Government. The learned Collector of Puri did not concede the demand of the proprietors, and held that the occupancy holding is situated within the tenure held under the proprietors and lay within the geographical limits of the estate which had vested in the Government. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Collector, dated November 20, 1956. the proprietors moved the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for relief against what was alleged to be illegal interference with their interest not as proprietors but as occupancy tenants. The High Court dismissed the proprietors' claim chiefly on the ground that the question raised by the petition before the High Court was "practically concluded by the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of K. C. Gajapati Narayan Deo vs. State of Orissa, (1954) SCR 1.

(3.) It is manifest that the controversy raised in this case has to be answered with reference to the provisions of the Act. 'Estate' has been defined in cl. (g) of S. 2 of the Act as follows: