BRUNDABAN CHANDRA DHIR NARENDRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA IN THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Art.226 of the Constitution by the petitioner who is the proprietor of Madhupur Estate in Cuttack district, against the State of Orissa and the Court of Wards of the Orissa State, as well as against the Deputy Collector in charge of the Wards Estate. The State Government by virtue of the powers conferred on it under S.16, Orissa Court of Wards Act, 1947, issued notification No.9876/R dated the 7th December 1951, in the Revenue Department declaring the petitioner a disqualified proprietor under S.10(f)(iv) of the said Act and published the same in the Orissa Gazette in accordance with the provision of S.21 of the Act. The Court of Wards assumed superintendence of the Madhupur Estate by virtue of the said notification on the 8th December 1951. Since then, the Estate has been under the management of the Court of Wards. The petitioner has accordingly come forward with this application dated the 5th March 1952, challenging the validity of the action of the State Government in declaring him a disqualified proprietor and in ousting him from the possession of the Estate. The validity of the declaration is challenged on various grounds, both legal and factual, which may be summarised as follows : (1) S.10(f), Orissa Court of Wards Act infringes some of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and is hence ultra vires. (2) The declaration is not in consonance with the essentials of the procedure prescribed by the Courts of Wards Act and is hence illegal. (3) The facts found on which the declaration is supposed to have been based are not sufficient in law to enable the State Government to exercise its power under section 16 taken with S.10(f)(iv) of the Act and hence the declaration is invalid. (4) In any case, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it was a gross and mala fide abuse of statutory power for ulterior purposes and hence void. To appreciate the above contentions, it is necessary to notice a few events which in their sequence have led up to the order of the Government now under challenge, as disclosed by the affidavits on either side, and the documents filed as annexures to the affidavits.

(2.) IN or about September 1948, the State Government appear to have received some complaints from the tenants of the Madhupur Estate regarding its management. The then Premier, Shri H.K. Mahatab, visited the Estate and an eight (sic) programme of settlement between the landlord and the tenants, to be implemented by the deputation of a competent Magistrate as a Special Officer, was drawn up on the 2nd December 1948. It is asserted on the side of the Government that this settlement was not properly implemented but this is denied on behalf of the petitioner. However that may be, it would appear that on the 26th August 1950, the Government of Orissa in the Revenue Department directed a thorough enquiry to be made into the present state of affairs of the Madhupur Estate. This appears from annexure E filed on behalf of the Government which is as follows:

(3.) IT may be stated at once that the allegation as to the existence of a scheme in some of the subordinate officers in the interest of one Shri N.C. Patnaik to bring about the assumption of the Estate by the Court of Wards, so that he may be appointed as the Manager thereof under the Court, has no material at all in support of it, unless we are prepared to use as evidence, the typed copy of a certain letter dated the 23 -11 -1950, marked as annexure (A) to the application of the petitioner. This letter purports to have been addressed to one Khetra and subscribed by a person under the designation brother without any name. The petitioner no doubt states in his petition in para.11 thereof that this was a copy of a letter addressed by one Shri B. Mohanty, one of his retained lawyers. The original letter is not filed and it does not appear how this letter or the cony thereof marked annexure A has come into the possession of the petitioner. Neither the alleged writer of the letter nor the addressee thereof has filed an affidavit swearing to the contents of the said letter. In these circumstances, I am not prepared to act upon the said annexure A. If that goes out, there is really no material even to indicate the likelihood of the alleged scheme of the subordinate officers in the interest of the said Shri N.C. Patnaik. That portion of the case may, therefore, be ruled out from any further consideration.