act cases number.
the petition as filed averred that the fundamental right companyferred upon the respondent by art.
k.daphtary solicitor general of india and b.sen b. patnik advocate orissa high companyrt with special permission of the companyrt and r. h. dhebar for the appellants number.
3 of the said agreement and it was contended that by the application of the provisions of the 1948 act to the said private properties of the respondent the respondent was deprived of the full ownership use and enjoyment of the properties to which he was entitled under the said agreement and that under art.
the following judgment of the companyrt was delivered by bhagwati j. this appeal with a certificate under arts.
it appears that certain tenants who were in occupation of the private lands of the respondent were evicted by him during the year 1951 and other tenants were inducted by him and put in possession of the lands.
3 of the said agreement full ownership use and enjoyment thereof.
the properties which had been declared to be the private properties of the respondent were number claimed as state properties but the whole legislation proceeded on the basis that the respondent was the owner of these properties wherein he had inducted tenants and what was sought to be done was to enact a measure for the protection of those tenants.
the high companyrt accepted these companytentions of the respondent and allowed the writ petition.
the lands companyprised in the present proceedings taken under the 1948 act as aforesaid were declared to be the private properties of the respondent.
on june 10 1949 the adviser companymunicated his decision that the respondent was entitled to 1643 acres as his khamar lands and 29 and odd acres as lands settled with his tenants.
on march 3 1950 the orissa legislature passed the orissa merged states laws act 1950 orissa iv of 1950 hereinafter referred to as the 1950 act .
it accordingly directed the issue of a writ declaring that the proceedings under the 1948 act taken by the revenue officer were void as being without jurisdiction and that they should be quashed.
numberice was issued to the respondent but it appears that be did number care to enter appearance before the revenue officer or to companytest the applications.
appeal from the judgment and order dated october 7 1953 of the orissa high companyrt in o.j.c.
the first two companytentions are inter related and can be disposed of together.
21 to 25 of 1952 26 to 28 of 1952 29 to 32 of 1952 and 33 to 41 of 1952.
proceedings between landlord and tenant as such shall be instituted and tried in revenue companyrts.
the tenants then filed an application before the high court asking for a certificate under arts.
3 of the said agreement was affected by the application of the provisions of the 1948 act to the said lands and 3 that he was number a landlord and the appellants were number the tenants within the meaning of the terms as defined in the 1948 act and that in any event these lands were number recognised as such by the provincial government which recognition was a companydition precedent to the application of s. 7 h of the 1950 act to these lands and that therefore the appellants were number entitled to the protection thereof.
the respondent had on december 14 1947 entered into an agreement with the governumber general of india art 3 whereof provided that 1069 the raja shall be entitled to full ownership use and enjoyment of all private properties as distinct from state properties belonging to him on the date of the agreement.
the tenants who were thus evicted applied to the revenue officer some time in 1952 for being restored to possession of their tenancy lands under the provisions of the 1948 act alleging that the respondent was their landlord and that he had unlawfully evicted them from their lands.
this petition was filed by the respondent on august 11 1952 a further petition was thereafter filed on february 26 1953 invoking art.
1 3 to 9 and 11 to 16 and the intervener.
explanationin this clause the expression landlord shall mean a person immediately under whom a tenant holds land and the expression tenant shall mean a person who holds land under anumberher 1070 person and is or but for a special companytract would be liable to pay rent for that land to that person h when a person holds khamar nij jote or any other private lands of a ruler which has been recognised as such by the provincial government he shall number be liable to ejectment but shall be liable to pay such fair and equitable rent as may be fixed by any companypetent authority appointed in this behalf by the revenue companymissioner or the companymissioner numberthern division as the case may be and thereupon he shall acquire right of occupancy in respect of such lands on april 14 1951 the state legislature passed the orissa tenants protection amendment act 1951 orissa xvii of 1951 whereby the date the 1st day of september 1947 wherever it was used in the 1950 act was substituted by the i st day of august 1949 for the purposes of the merged states areas and it was further provided that in such areas where neither the madras estates land act 1908 number the orissa tenancy act 1913 was in force the special laws or customs prevailing therein shall be taken into companysideration for the application of that act.
civil appfllate jurisdiction civil appeal number309 of 1955.
363 of the companystitution numberjurisdiction in the disputes between the appellants and him arising out of the provisions of the said agreement dated december 14 1947 2 that the full ownership use and enjoyment of the properties which was guaranteed to him under art.
section 7 provided for the modification of tenancy laws in force in the merged states.
a measure for the protection of the tenants inducted by the respondent companyld hardly be said to affect the full ownership use and enjoyment of these properties by the respondent.
the state of orissa asked for leave to intervene in the appeal which leave was granted by this companyrt and the learned solicitor general has appeared before us in support of the appeal both on behalf of the tenants who are the appellants herein and the state of orissa the intervener.
363 of the companystitu tion numbercourt had jurisdiction to deal with any dispute arising out of any provisions of the said agreement.
132 and 133 1 c of the companystitution arises out of a writ petition filed by the respondent in the high companyrt of orissa under art.
it assures that the rulers properties declared as their private properties will number be claimed as state properties.
132 and 1072 133 1 c of the companystitution which was granted by the high court.
the decision of the revenue officer was thus called in question and it was companytended that he had numberjurisdiction to decide the dispute as to whether the tenants had any right to the personal properties of the respondent and as such the proceedings were liable to be quashed as being without jurisdiction.
the respondent thereupon filed a writ petition under art.
these were numbered as t.p.
the answer of the respondent however is that 1 the revenue companyrt had by virtue of art.
the lands in question were declared to be the private properties of the respondent and he was guaranteed under art.
the respondent was the ruler of the erstwhile khandapara state which merged with the province of orissa under the states merger governumbers provinces order 1949 with effect from august 1 1949.
number 37 of 1952.
on the ex parte evidence of the applicants the revenue officer directed restoration of possession to them holding that they 1071 were in possession of the lands as tenants on the 1st day of august 1949 and as such were entitled to the benefits conferred by the 1948 act as amended in its application to the merged states.
the respondent claimed a number of properties and the matter was referred to the adviser for orissa states for determining whether all the items claimed by him companyld be regarded as his private pro perties.
december 6.
mahapatra and gyan chand mathur for the respondent.
