LexKUMAR BIMAL CHANDRA SINHA versus STATE OF ORISSA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
/Jfltll• 5;,.,. •• SleN •/ Punj,b Das Gupl•J· 1962 A.t, ii ao 552 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1963) On a consideration of all the features of the wound as described by the doctors together, we have come to the conclusion that the doctor's opinion as given in hie examination-in.chief, which was not challenged in cross-examination before the Committing Magistrate. that the shot may have been fired about three to four feet away should be accepted ae correct. We find no reaaon therefore interfere with the &Blleeement of evidence as made by the High Court and also with the order of conviction and sentence paBBed by it. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appe,al di8fni881!1l. KUM<\R BIMAL CHANDRA SINHA v. STATE OF ORISSA (R. P. SINHA, c. J., K. SUBBA RAO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J. R. MuDHOLKAR and T. L. VETKATARAMA. AIYAR, JJ.) E•tat.•, Abolition of-Raiyati right purch<ued bf proprietor-Building on occupanc" holding, u.<ed"" Kakheri- Notijicalion vuting .,tale in the Stat.-EJ!ecl-Wh<rlur building on occupanry holding veata in the Stare-OriSBa EBlalea Abolition Act, 1951 (OrisBD 1 of 1952), "· 21g}, (h) ,(i}, 3, 5, 26. :fhe appellants held the Paikpara estate as proprietors. They had purchased the properties in question comprising rai!Jali lands with certain buildings thereon from the raiyal. Thuc; the proprietor11 became occupancy raiyata under the tenure holders or sub-proprietors. By virtue of a notification issued under s. 3 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. 1951, the Paikpara estate vcstca in the State of Orissa. But the interc~~t of t~nure holders and sub·proprie~ors within the estate had not been taken over under the provisions of the Act. .. .. ... 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 553 The said buildings on the lal\ds of the occupancy holdings lHZ were used as Kaccheri houses by the proprietors for the irurn.r BirM! administration of their estates. The state officials Clla"'-a Si•h•· took posse.sion of these buildings situated on the v. raiyali land. The appellants made an application to the /Jlalt •f0ri11~ collector, Puri, for vacant possession of the lands and the buildings. The Collector did not concede the demand and· held that the occupancy holding was situated within the tenure held under the proprietors and lay within the geographi- cal limits of the estate which had vested in the Government. The High Col!rt dismissed the wiit petition of 'the appellant under Art. 226 on the ground that the question raised was practically concluded by the Supreme Court in K. O. Gajapati Nara~an v. Deo State of OriBsa. The appellants came up iii appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court. Heltl, that the appellants' raiyati interests in the lands and in the buildings standing on those lands had not been aft"ccted by the abolition of their interests as proprictorl, and the'State Authorities had illegally taken p0ssession of them. Held, further, that the Orissa Estates abolition Act,1951, was intended.to abolish all proprieton, sub-proprietors, tenure- holders, with a variety of names, but did not touch the in· terest of the raiyat. Hence though these lands with buildings was situate geographically within the ambit of the appellant's estate, they were not part. of the estate. The appellant held those proyerties with the buildings not as propritors as such, but as ra•yat•. Held, also, that the conclusion drawn by· the High Court from· the decision in K; 0. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. Th< Slate of Oriasa is not well founded. The observation of this Court on which it drew its conclusion had reference to the definition of 'home-stead' in cl. (1) of s, 2 of the Act. This court while d"'lling with the constitutionality of the Act; iii the above case, was not concerned \)lith raiyati lands. Its observations had reference only to surh buildings as stood upon the pro- prietor's private land, which were in his possession as propri· etor or as tenure-holder. · K. 0. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. The State o/ Orissa,[1954) S. C. R._ I, not applicable. CIVIL APPELJ.A•rJii JURISDICTION: Civil AppeJJl NQ. 177 o/ 1960. 554 ~Ul'REME COURT REPORTS [1963] 1962 Appeal from the Judgment and order dated """''" s;,,,,1 llfarch 2i, I 958, of the Orissa, High Court in 0. J. Cho"d,.S,,,ha C. No. 191 of 1!156. y. S••1• of o,;,,. llemendra Charulra Sen and S. Ghose, for the appellants. N. S, Bindra, V. N. Sethi and P. D .. Menon, for the respondent
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.