SYED ABDUL KARIM Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiff files this appeal against the judgment and decree of Shri G. Dhal, Subordinate Judge of Sambalpur dismissing the suit for a declaration that the Revenue proceedings in Revenue Case No. 4/6,87 of 1951 -52 of the Court of the Tahasildar, Sadar Circle started against him are illegal and ultravires and not justified by law and that the Defendants are not entitled to realise any money from him an account of the ferries.

(2.) THE Plaintiff's case is that the public ferries at Dhama and Chaurpur in the Sadar Tahasil of Sambalpur were Jet out by public auction to him by the District Board, Sambalpur, Defendant No. 2 for a period from 1 -4 -1947 to 31 -3 -1950 on a rent of Rs. 5,560/ - and Rs. 2685/ - respectively at a time when the chief source of income was the tolls realisable from vendors and purchasers who cross the ferries for going to and coming from the public markets at Dhama and Maneswar held on Saturdays and Mondays respectively every week. The Plaintiff alleged that the District Board having auctioned the right to levy tolls on these markets after he became the lessee of the ferries, the vendors and purchasers who used to cross the ferries gradually dwindled in numbers in consequence of which there was a considerable fall in the income from the ferries and it was not possible under the circumstances to continue the ferry services and pay the agreed rent. He further stated that consequently he sent a notice on 17 -2 -1948 to the Chairman, District Board to cancel the leases after the expiry of the notice. He also sent a notice to the District Magistrate, Sambalpur to the same effect. He further alleged that both the District Board and District Magistrate having taken no action, he stopped the ferry services and the ferries were left to take care of themselves; that in July 1948 when the Ferry Inspector asked him to pay the ferry rent, he wrote to the Chairman, District Board that since no action was taken by the District Board on his petition dated 17 -2 -1948, he ceased to be a lessee after his expiry of the notice and was not liable to pay any rent; and that the District Board in the meantime sent a requisition to the District Magistrate for realisation of Rs. 5463 -1.2 -0 and In the orders of the District Magistrate, the Tahasildar had issued notice to the Plaintiff to pay that amount. On these allegations, he filed the suit and prayed for the declaration stated above, after having served notices under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the District Magistrate and the District Board.

(3.) THE Plaintiff examined himself only and Defendant No. 2 examined three witnesses. Both sides exhibited certain documents on which mainly the case was disposed of.