LexBISWAMBHAR SINGH versus THE STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1954 Chatturb·',uj Vithaldat ,7asani v. .i\toreshwar Paras11ram and Others. Bose J. 1953 Det:emhcr 18. 842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS conversion he continued to be a Mahar nomination form was wrongly rejected. the whole election. (1954J and so his That affects The other points argued before the Election Tribunal were not pressed before us. We therefore uphold the decision of the Tribunal and dismiss the appeal with costs. Appeal dismissed. Agent for the appellant: I. N. Shroff. Agent for the respondent: Gan pat Rai. BISW AMBHAR SINGH ti. THE STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER JANARDHAN SINGH v. THE STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER SIBANARA YAN SINGH MAHAPATRA ti. THE STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER. rPATANJALI sAsTRI c.J., MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, S. R. DAs, VIVIAN BosE and GHuLAM HASAN. JJ.J Orissa Estates Abolition Act, (Orissa Act I of ]952), ss. 2(g) 2(h) and 3-0tuners of certain zamindaries-Whether inter- n1ediaries holding an estate iuithin the nieaning of ss. 2(g'; and 2(/i ). The State Government is en1po\vered under s. 3( 1) to issue a notification declaring that the estate specified therein has passed to the State, but the notification must be in respect of the property which is defined as an estate in s. 2(g) and that estate must be held by an intermediary as defined in s. 2(h). In order to be an intennediary accordirig to the definition in s. 2(h) the person n1us.t be, among other things, "a Zamindar, Jlaquedar, Kherposhdar or Jagirdar within the nieaning of Wajib- ul-arz or any Sanad, deed or other instrument." S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 843 Held, that the proprietors of Hamgir and Serapgarh properties were not intermediaries as defined in s 2.(h) and their respective properties were not "estates" within the meaning of s. 2(g) and therefore Government had no jurisdiction or authority to issue any notification under s. 3 with respect to their properties. Held (Per PATANJALI SASTRI C.J., DAs and GHULAM HAsAo; JI., MAHAJAN and BosE JJ., dissenting), as respects the Nagra Zan::indari that the Zan1indar appellant)- was an intern1ediary as defined in s. 2(h) of the Act and his estate \Vas an estate \Vithin tbe meaning of s. 2(g) because the predecessor-in-title of the present Zamindar had acknowledged the overlordship of Raja of Gangpur and there- fore the State Government had jurisdiction to issue a notification under s. 3 of the Act declaring that the estate had passed to and become vested in the State. Per 1'1AHAJAN ar:.d BosE JJ.-'fhe words "deed" and "other instruments" in s. 2(h) are not to be read ejusdem generis \Vith "Sanad" and thus are not confined to a docun1ent of title like ~ San.ad in which one party creates or confers a zamindari estate on another. 1"he words must be read disjunctively and be inter- preted according to their ordinary meaning. With reference to inerged territories an intermediary neither "includes" a zamin<lar nor "1ncans" a zan1indar, but means a zaminJar "within the meaning of" (I) the Wajib-ul-arz (2) any Sanad (3) any deed or (4) of any others instrument. The kind of zamindar referred to in s. 2(h) is one who may be called "a true intern1ediary" within the 1neaning of the four docu- ments set out there, that is to say, persons who hold an interest in the land between the raiyat and the overlord of the estate. CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 167 and 169 of 1953· Appeals under articles 132(1) and 133(1) (c) of the Constitutic:o. of India from the Judgment and Order,. dated the 7th April 1953, of the High Court of Judicature of Orissa at Cuttack in Original Jurisdiction· Cases Nos. 65, 67 an<l 68 of 1952. N. C. Chatteriee (B. Sen K. C. Mukheriea and H. S. Mohanty, with him) for the appellant. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India and Pitambar Misra, Advocate-General of Orissa, (V. N. Sethi, with them) for the respondents. 1953. December 18. The Judgment of Patanjali Sastri C. J·, Das and Ghulam Hassan JJ. was delivered by Das J. The Judgment of Mahajan J. and Bose J. was delivered by Bose J. DAs J.-These three together raise the same appeals which have been heard or similar questions. Appr;:iL 1953 Biswambhar Singh v. TLe State 'of Orissa and 0!11.rs. 1953 Biswamb:iar Singh v. 'T/;e Slate vj· Orissa url'f Otherj', /Jri1 ]. 844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1954] No. I 67 of 1953, relates to Hemgir of which the appella
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.