LexANANDA BEHERA AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 919 Act that the tenants became entitled to occupancy rights, the inamdars would, on notification, be free to eject tenants. and settll:'. their own terms with them. \Ne cannot accede to a contention which results not merely in the frustration of the object of the Act but further produces consequences, the reverse of what were intended. On the other hand, the contention of the appellant that minor inams fall outside section 20 and would vest straightaway in the State under sec- tion 3 (b) will have the effect of extinguishing the rights of the inamdars, and enabling the State to issue ryotwari pattas to the tenants in oceupation. We prefer to accept this contention, as it fully effectuates the intention of the legislature. In the result, we must hold that the one-sixteenth portion of the village of Karuppur forming a darmila inam will vest in the Government under section 3 (b) of the Act, and that the only right of the inamdars is to share in the com- pensation under the terms of the Act. The petition of the respondent in so far as it relates to this inam must be dismissed. This appeal is accordingly allowed, and in accord- ance wit~1 the terms of the certificate granting leave, the appellant will pay the costs of the respondent in this Court. The parties will be:.ir their own costs in the court below. ANANDA BEHERA AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER [S. R. DAs, AcnNG C. J., VIVIAN BosE, ]AGAN- NADHADAS, JAFF.R IM.'\M and CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ.] Ft;ndamental Rights, Enforcement of-Oral sale of fishery rights for future years by owner of estate before it vested in the State by legis- lation-Nature of such rights-Profit a prendre, if immovable pro- perty requiring registered imtrument for transfer-Such sale, if cre- ates any right to property-Non-recognition by the State, if trans- gresses any fundamental 1·ights-Constitution of India, Arts. 19(1) (/), 31(1)-0rissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (Orissa Act I of 1952) -Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), s. 54. 1955 Thi Stat• of Madras and anothu v. V. Srinivcstt Ayyangar Vmkatarama Ayyar]. 1955 Octob., 2 7. 1955 Ananda Behera and anathtr v. The State of Orissa and another 920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] The petitioners obtained oral licenses for catching and appro- priating fish fron1 specified sections of the Chilka Lake from its pro- prietor, t!~e ]~aja of Parikud, on payn1ent of heavy sums and obtained receipts in accordance with the prevailing practice. This was before the passinz of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act of 1951 by which ownership of the estate vested in the State of Orissa. The licenses, however, were in respect of years subscriuent to such vesting. The State of Orissa refused to recognise them and \Vas seeking to re~ au'.::tion the rights of fishery. The petitioners contended that it had thereby infringed or was abo~t to infringe their fu0damental rights under Arts. lY(l)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution and claimed that the tronsactions being sales of future goods, namely, the fish, the Act which •vas confined to imtnovable property had no application. Held, that the right sought to be acquired by the petitioners by their several purchases was not in respect of any future goods as claimed by the;n but was a license to enter on the land coupled with a grant to catch and carry away the fish, in other i;vords, a profit a prendre \vhich is imn1ovable property \Vithin the meaning of the Transfer of Property Act read with s. 3(25) of the General Clauses Act. Accordingly s. 54 of the former Act applies. That as the sale of the profit a prendre in the present case was valued at n1ore than one hundred rupees and was effected without \vriting and registration it contravened s. 54 of the Transfer of Pro- perty Act, and so no title or interest therein passed to the petitioners and consequently, they had no fundamental rights to enforce. Fir1n Chhotabhai Jethahai Patel & Co. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, ( [ 1953 J S.C.R. 476), distinguished and held inapplicable. That it \~ras not necessary in the present case to decide whether the contract \vas property \Vithin the 1l1eaning of Arts. 19(1)(£) and 31 ( 1 ), but assuming it to be so, the State has not taken such pro~ perty away from the petitioners or prevented them from acquiring, holding or disposing '-of it. The State merely refuses to reco
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.