LexLORD LINGARAJ BIJE, BHUBANESWAR AND ANR. versus SH. NITYANANDA MISHRA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
LORD LINGARAJ BUE, BHUBANESWAR AND A!\IR.
B
c
v.
SH. NITY ANANDA MISHRA AND ORS.
MAY 2, 1995
[R.M. SAHAI AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.[
01issa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1939:
01issa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951: Sections 25 and 61!.
01issa Estates Abolition Act, 195 l :
Land-Lease-Death of lessee-Successor-in-interest-Transfer of land
b7Application filed by tmstee for recove1y of possessio1t-Rejectio,1 of-En-
forcement of Abolition Act-Application by occupants of land for being
D treated as occupancy tenants under Abolition Act-Rejection of-Fresh ap-
plication by tmstee for recovery of possession-Claim of occupancy
right-Detennination and adjudication by competent authoriry--Direction to
approach Civil Cowt for approp1iate relief
E
The appellant let out his land to D before coming into force of the
Orissa Hindu Religious Endowlements Act, 1939. After the death of D his
widow B succeeded to his estate and transferred the land in favour of the
respondent. The appellants filed an application under Section 68 of the
Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 for recovery of possession
which was allowed. However, the Commissioner set aside this order hold-
F ing that B became the occupancy tenant. An application filed by the
respondent under Sections 6 and 7 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act,
1951 for being treated as occupancy trnants was held not maintainable on
the ground that they were not intermediaries. Thereafter another applica-
tion was filed by the appellant for recovery of possession under Section 25
stating that after the. enforcement of Abolition Act the disputed land was
G settled with the appellant as intermediary and the same was leased out to
B who alienated it in favour of the respondents in violation of section 19.
Therefore, the respondents were liable to be ejected. The Commissioner of
Endowment allowed the application. The High Court quashed the order
holding that (i) the lease was given in favour of D even before the 1939 Act
H had come into force; and (ii) the order passed in eviction proceedings
1046
t
LORD LINGARAl BJJE "· NITY ANAND A MISHRA iSAHAL .1.J
1047
under section 68 holding that B had ae<1uired occupancy right had become A
final; the entire proceedings by which the land was settled by B with
appellant as intermediary was contrary to law. Against the decision of the
High Court an appeal was preferred before this Court.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
HELD : Section 25 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act,
1951 permits the trustee to file an application against a person who was
otherwise in unauthorised occupation. The application filed by the appel-
lant, therefore, was maintainable. But the respondent was not precluded
B
in these proceedings from claiming that he had acquired rights and he was C
not in unauthorised occupation. It was also open to him to claim that his
predecessor had a better title than the appellant, and, therefore, no order
under Section 25 could have been passed. The right of the respondent and
his predecessor about the claim of occupancy rights had to be determined
and adjudicated by some competent authority. It is not possible to shut
out the respondent only because his application under Sections 6 and 7 D
was rejected. There was no adjudication merits by the appellate authority.
The appellant is, therefore, permitted to approach the Civil Court which
shall decide the dispute between the parties unhindered by any observation
made in this order or the order passed by the Commissioner in earlier
proceedings under Section 68 of the Act or the proceedings under Sections' E
6 and 7 of the Abolition Acl [1049-B, H, 1050-A, DJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5256 of
1995.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.8.91 of the Orissa High F
Court in O.J.C. No. 166 of 1984.
Rajinder Sachar and A.K. Panda for the Appellant.
P.P. Rao and P.N. Misra for the Respondent in No. 1 - 3.
R.K. Mahpatra, P.N. Misra, S. Misra, S. Kumar, A.C. Pradhan and
Ms. Kirti Misra for the Respondent No. 4.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
R.M. SAHAI, J. This appeal is directed against order passed by the H
1048
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1995] 3 S.C.R.
A High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction quashing the order passed by
the Commissioner of Endowments under Section 25 of the Orissa Hindu
Religious Endowments Act, 1951 {hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
Facts in brief arExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.