It was let out, in 1937 before companying into force of the Act by the Trust Board, in favour of one Dr. Ramendu Ray.
It was allowed.
It was alleged that after the enforcement of Abolition Act, land was settled with the intermediary that is, the appellant who leased it out to Bhibhati who alienated it in favour of the respondent in companytravention of Section 19 of the Act, therefore, the respondents were liable to ejectment.
After his death his widow Bhibhati succeeded to the estate and paid rent to the Board.
The order was challenged by way of a writ petition in the High Court.
She appears to have transferred the land in dispute in favour of respondents.
1995 3 SCR 1046 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. SAHAI, J. This appeal is directed against order passed by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction quashing the order passed by the Commissioner of Endowments under Section 25 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
In further appeal it was held that their application was number maintainable as provisions of Sections 6 and 7 companyld be invoked only by a person with whom land has been settled as intermediate.
The appellant thereafter filed another application under Section 25 of the Act for recovery of the property.
They approached the Tahsildar under Sections 6 and 7 of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act referred as Abolition Act for being regarded as occupancy tenant.
The land was agricultural waste land which was reclaimed by Dr. Ray and he companytinued in possession till his death.
The application was rejected.
The application was allowed.
The order was, however, set aside by the Commissioner on 7.5.1971 and it was held that she became occupancy tenant.
In 1970 an application was filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 68 of the Act for recovery of possession.
Facts in brief are that the land, originally, belonged to Lord Lingaraj, the appellant.
