JAGANNATH BEHERA AND OTHERS versus RAJA HARIHAR SINGH MARDARAJ BHRAMARBARA ROY

Citation: [1958] 1 S.C.R. 1067 · Decided: 06-12-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
JAGANNATH BEHERA AND OTHERS 
v. 
RAJA HARIHAR SINGH 
MARDARAJ BHRAMARBARA ROY 
1067 
(BHAGWATI, B. P. SINHA, 
JAFER 
IMAM, J. L. KAPUR and 
GAJENDRAGADKAR JJ.) 
Merger Agreement-Private property of Ruler-Legisla-
tion restricting ejectment of tenants-If violates guarantee of 
full ownership, use and enjoyment-Jurisdiction of Courts in 
di.Spute be.tween Ruler and tenants-Ruler whether a landlord 
-Orissa Tenants Protection Act, 1948 (Orissa III of 1948), ss. 
2(a) and (g)-Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act, 1950 (Orissa 
IV of 1950), ss. 7(a) and (h)-Constitution of India, Arts. 19(1) 
(f), 363. 
The respondent was the Ruler of the erstwhile State of 
Khandapara which merged in the State of Orissa on August 1. 
1949. Article 3 qf the Agreement of Merger guaranteed that 
"the Raja shall be entitled to full ownership, use and enjoy-
ment of all his private properties". The OrissaMerged States' 
(Laws) Act, 1950 extended the Orissa Tenant's Protection Act, 
1948 to the merged areas. In 1951 the respondents evicted cer-
tain tenants. The tenants applied to the Revenue Officer under 
the 1948 Act for being restored to possession on the allegations 
that the respondent was their landlord and that he had unlaw-
fully evicted them. The Revenue Officer allowed the applica-
tions and directed· restoration of possession. 
The respondent 
filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High 
Court for quashing the orders of the Revenue Officer contend-
ing, (1) that the application of the provlsions of the 1948 Act 
to his private properties violated the guarantee given. under 
the Agreement,, (2) that Art. 363 of the Constitution barred· the 
Court from dealing with any dispute arising out of the Agree-
m~nt, and (3) that the 1948 Act did not apply to him as he was 
not a ·landlord. The High Court 
accepted these contentions 
and quashed the proceedings taken under the 1948 Act : 
Held, that the extention of the 1948 Act did not affect the 
full ownership, use and enjoyment of his properties guaran-
teed to the respondent under the Agreement. The provisions 
of the Agreement only protected· his rights to t.he properties 
declared to be his private properties so that they could not be 
claimed at anytime thereafter as State properties. The gua-
rantee given under the Agreement could not be absolute but 
could only be co-extensive with the right to acquire, hold and 
dispose of property which is guaranteed to all citizens under 
Art. 19(1)(£) of the Constitution. 
State of Bihar v. Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh of 
D)3SOI-3(11) 
. 
1957 
Decemher 6. 
'1068 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1958] 
r957 
Darbhang~. [1952] S.C.R. 889 ~nd Visheshwar Rao v. The State of 
-
Madhya Pradesh, [1952] S.C.R. 1020, followed. 
Jagannath Behera 
H Id 
h 
h . . . di . 
f th C 
. 
h 
and o·tJurs 
e , t at t e .Juns ct1on o 
e 
ourts to entertain t e 
... 
· · applications under the 1948 . Act, was not barred by Art. 363 of 
Raja 
the Constitution. The dispute between the appellants and respon-
Harihar Singh dent was not a. dispute which arose.· out of the Agreement of 
Mardaraj 
Merger, and so "!as not eov~red by ,Art. 363. 
Bhramarbara Roy 
Held further, that the respondent was a landlord to whom 
the provisions of the 1948 Act, applied .. Whatever may have 
been the definition of the terms landlord and tenant in ss. 2(c) 
and (g) of the 1948 Act the definitions contained in s. 7(a) of the 
1950 Act, made the appellants •the tenants' and the respondent 
'the landlord' in regard to the lands in question. 
Bhagwatt ]. 
'CIVIL Af>P'.i<:LiATE 'Juru;~1c'T10N: Civil Appeal No. 
309 of 1955. 
· · 
· 
· · Appeal fr~m. the· judg~ent' and cird~r dated Octo-
ber 7, 1953, of the.Orissa High Court in O.J.C .. No. 37 
of 1952. 
·' 
· ·. O: K,; Daphtary, · Solicitor-General· of India· and 
B~ Sen (B: M. Patnik; Advocate,·. Orissa'High ·. Oourt-:-
with Special Permission of the Oourt. and R.H. Dhebar), 
for the appellants Nos. 1, 3 to 9 and 11 to 16 and the 
intervener. 
: ' . 
. H. ]lahapatra and. Gyan' Ohand .Mathur, for the 
respondent. . · · . 
. ·. 
: · · . 
· 
. · 
· 1957. December 6. 'The following Judgment of the 
Court was. delivered by· 
· · . · · 
. · 
·· 
· BHAGWATi J.-· This appe~l with a certificate unde~ 
Arts. 132 and I33(l)(c) of the Constitution arises out 
of a writ petition filed by the respondent in the, High 
Court of Orissa under Art: 226 seeking to quash the 
proceedings taken by certain tenants of hi

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