GAYARAM PATEL & ORS. versus KAILASH CHAND P ANIGRAHI

Citation: [1979] 3 S.C.R. 320 · Decided: 20-02-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
320 
GAYARAM PATEL & ORS. 
v. 
KAILASH CHAND P ANIGRAHI 
f ef?ruary 20, 1979 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. D. KOSHAL, JJ.J 
Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951-S.1-"lntermediary" who is -Gaonda 
·thik<1dari' whether intermedia,:Y. 
- ·- '. . 
~-. 
The ancestors of a former Zamindar dedicated their maufi interest in a 'Yil-
lage in favour of a deity. Acting on behalf of the deity the ex-zamindar 
created a lease of thikadari rights in the village in favour of the appellant for 
ten years. The lease deed termed the appellant .. "legal guardian of gaontia 
thikadari patta". While the lease was in force the Orissa Estates Abolition A':~ 
1951 which •ought to abolish all intermediaries in land and vest their intell'.S! 
in the State came intO force. The Act however protected certain interme.tiarie& 
thereby carving out an exception to the scheme of the Act. 
Meanwhile the Managing Trustee of the Board of Trustee• appointed under 
the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 to look after the affairs of 
the deity filed a petition under s. 7 of the Abolition Act claiming that the deity 
was in Khas possession of certain lands including the land lease to the appellant 
and prayed that the same be settled on the Board of Trustees as an occupan::y 
tenant. The question was eventually settled in favour of the Truateet and agair1st 
the appellant. 
fo the Managing Trustee's application under s. 145 Cr. P.C. aasertina that 
the appellant was disturbing peaceful possession of the deity over the land, the 
Magistrate held that it was the appellant who was in poaseaaion of the land 
and directed that the land should be restored to him. 
The High Court in revision set aside the order of the Maai1trate. 
In appeal• to this Court the appellant contended that it was he and not the 
deity, who was the thikadar and therefore an intermediary within the meaning 
of the definition of that term in the Abolition Act and WM in Khaa possessi1)n 
ef the land in dispute and so the land should be restored to him. 
Allowing the appeals, 
HELD : 1. It was the appellant who had the Khas poss~ssion of the land,. 
and therefore, the land must be deemed to have been vested in him, and not 
in the deity, as an occupancy tenant under the provisions of 11. 7 of the Abo-
lition Act. [328 F] 
2. Apart from the description of the appellant as gaontia thikadari patta. 
condition 8 contains a. sure indication of the nature of the tenancy agreement. 
It states "that the cultivable lands cannot be utilised for any other purpose nor 
can they be transferred or sold or otherwise dealt with to the hardship of the 
villagers or the tenants." [328 B-C] 
• 
' 
~ 
-~ ~ 
... 
.1 
,--.. 
GAYARAM PATEL v. j(AILAS\I CHANp 
(~mbal, J.) 
321 
3. The reference to tenants in !his condition points to the land bejng under 
~ 
the cuthvatiOn' of persons Other than· the 3.ppellant ai ·the mo'ment the lease was 
granted. This position was incompatible with the grarit of~ an ordinary lease to 
• 
him. The tenure. granted in his favour was on the other band one conferring on 
him a right to collect the rents from the tenants of the deity and in lieu thereof 
pay a fixed sum to it. He was, therefore, correctly 
described as gacmtia or 
thikadar, both of which expressions describe an intermediary as distinguiihed 
from a raiyat or an acfoal tiller of the soil. [328 D-EJ 
I}, 
a 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 286 
a' ' 
of 1973. 
) 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order 
dated 
.J 
~. ,_ 16-5-1973 of the Orissa High Court in Crl. Revision No. 645 
of 
1972. 
.. 
J 
AND 
CIVIL APPEAL No. 2036 of 1973 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order 
dated 
6-3-1973 of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C. No. 491/72. 
J. L. Jain and Mrs. S. Gopalakrishnan for the Appellants. 
G. Dass, Mrs. S. Bhandare and A. N. Karkhanis for 
the 
Res-
pondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KosHAL, J. By this judgment we shall dispose of Civil Appeal 
No. 2036 of 1973 and Criminal Appeal No. 286 of 1973, both of 
which have arisen from a dispute over a single piece of land and the 
facts leading to which may be briefly stated. 
Long before the year 
1949, the ancestors of Shri Lal Anup Singh Dea, ex-zamindar of 
'i<hariar dedicated their maufi interest in village Konabira in favour 
of Sri Samaleswari Devi (hereinafter referred to as the deity). On the 
10th May 1949 Shri Lal Annp Singh Dea aforesaid, acting on behalf 
of the deit

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.