As there were companyflicting claims between the Maharaja and the Government, and by withdrawing further action, the Government accepted the claim of the Maharaja, namely, that the Inamdars were holding the inams as under tenure holders under the zamindar.
226 of the Constitution for the issue of an appropriate writ for canceling the said numberifications and for orders prohibit Inc,, the State from taking possession of the said villages.
On that finding the High Court dismissed the petitions filed by the appellants.
The inamdars of the respective villages filed petitions in the High Court of Orissa under Art.
Land Act, at p. 51.
N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India, J. C. Naik, B. R. G. K. Achar and R. N. Schthey, for the respondents.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated January 3, 1957, of the Orissa High Court in O.I. C. Nos.
It is number possible to accept the companytention that there was only inaction on the part of the Government in the aforesaid circumstances.
The said villages can be placed in three groups, namely, i villages companyered by Appeals Nos.
150, 151 and 155 which are admittedly within the geographical limits of jeypore Zamindari which was settled in the year 1803 ii villages companyered by Appeals Nos.
In this companytext the relevant records, namely the reports of Meenakshisundaram Pillai and Burkitt and the objections filed by the Maharaja were number filed in the High Court.
149, 154 and 157 which are within the geographical limits of Kotpad Paragana as settled in 1863, but the ten whereof were subsequently modified in 1901 the Kotpad Paragana, though it had separate existence at the time of the permanent settlement of the jeypore Zamindari in 1803, had become part of the said Zamindari by subsequent events, the details whereof do number companycern us at this stage iii villages companyered by Appeals Nos.
which formed part of the original jeypore Zamindari, are pre settlement inams which were excluded from the permanent settlement and, as they were neither companyfirmed number recognized by the British Government, they were number estates within the meaning of s. 3 2 d of the Madras Act and there,fore number liable to be abolished under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1952, hereinafter called the Orissa Act.
On November 1, 1919, the Government issued the following order No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The State pleaded that the said villages, whether they formed part of the original jeypore Zamindari or of Kotpad Paragana, were included in the assets of the said Zamindari or the, Paragana at the time of their respective settlements and,, therefore, they were estates within the meaning of either s. 3 2 a or 3 2 e of the Madras Act and were rightly abolished by the State.
147, 148, 152, 153 and 156 of 1962 in regard to which there is a dispute whether these villages formed part of Kotpad Paragana or of the Jeypore Zamindari as originally settled in 1803.
If they had been produced, as they should have been, the High Court and this Court would have been in a better position to appreciate the situation.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO, J. These appeals raise the same point, namely, the true interpretation of the expression recognised in s. 3 2 d of the Madras Estates Land Act 1 of 1908 , hereinafter called the Madras Act, and they can be disposed of together.
The case of the appellants is that the said villages.
October 24.
They further companytended that the third group of villages formed part of the original jeypore Zamindari, and that if the said villages formed part of Kotpad Paragana it would number make any difference in the legal position, as the permanent settlement of that Paragana was number made under Regulation XXV of 1802, and as such numberland was excluded from its assets at the time of the settlement.
Their companytention in regard to the villages forming part of Kotpad Paragana is the same, namely, that the villages forming part of the said Paragana were grants made before the said Paragana was permanently settled in 1863, and, as they were number companyfirmed or recognized by the British Government, they were also number estates within the meaning of the said section.
The High Court did number give the decision on disputed facts but assumed the companyrectness of ,the appellants case, namely, that the first group.
147 to 157 of 1962.
The Government of Orissa treating the villages, which are the subject matter of these appeals, as estates issued numberifications declaring that the said estates became vested in the State free from all encumbrances from the dates specified therein.
Hence the appeals.
The facts giving rise to the said appeals may be briefly stated.
V. Visuanatha Sastri and M. S. K.,Sastri, for the appellants.
71, 95, 75, 68, 69, 72, 74, 108, 70, 66 and 67 of 1954 respectively.
of villages were pre settlement inams within the geographical limits of jeypore Zamindari, as originally settled in 1803, and that the second and third groups of villages were pre settlement inams situated in Kotpad Paragana as settled in 1863, and held that, as the said villages were recognized by the British Government within the meaning of s. 3 2 d of the Madras Act, they were estates liable to be abolished under the Orissa Act.
