LexMAHANT SANKARSHAN RAMANUJA DAS GOSWAMI ETC., ETC. versus THE STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1961
A.ug1ut 22.
THE SUPREME COURT REPORTS
A
l\IAHA1i1T
SANKARSHAN HAi\lAKl'JA DAS
GOSWAMI ETC., ETC.
t'.
THE STATE OF ORISSA AXD AXOTHER.
(J. L. KAPUR, K. SUBBA RAO, !II. HlllAYATFLJ.AH,
.J.C. SHAH and RA<rnUBAl\ DAYAL, JJ.)
Eslai'8
Abolition- ·Amending Act en111rging meaning of
t1talt-Con•titu:ionality of -Minor
Inam•- lf tatates-Orism
Eatales Abolition Act, 1.951, (Orissa 1 of Jf15l). "• amtncled iy
Orissa Eslalea Abolition (Amenclment) Act, 1954, Ori . .,a XV 11
of 1954) 8. 2(g)-Conslilulion of India Ari .. 11-A.
The appellants were holders of pre-settlement minor
inarns. The grants were not of \\·hole viUages but of certain
lands and they comprised Loth the melu·ar11rrt and kttditraram
rights in the lands. The definition of 'estate' in the Orissa
Estates Abolition Act, 1951, did not include a minor inam.
But by the Orissa Estates Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1954,
the definition \\'a! enlarged to cover minor ina1ns also.
Both
the Acts had received the assent of the President. The appe-
llants contended (i) that the Amendment Act of 1954 was not
a law for the compulsory acquisition of property for a public
purpose and was not saved by Art. 31A
of the Constitution
and (ii) that the minor inams \\.'ere outside the scope of the
Abolition Act and could not he resumed.
Htld, that the Amendment Act of 1954 was valid and was
within the Protection of Art. 31A.
In assenting to this Acr,
the President assented to new categories of properties being:
brought within the operation of the aholi tion Act of 1951,
and he, in fact, assented to the la'" for the compulsory acquisi.
tion for public purpose of these new categories of property.
Though the minor inams \Vere not of ,,,hole villages and includ-
ed both the waraf>'l.a,
they ,,·ere
nevertheless ' inam.•;" and
the Constitution defin('cl an ''estate" as including ''any" inam
and fell \'lithin the scc.pe of Abolition 1\ct of 1 <l5 l a.:; amended
in 1954.
1'he eju.."lem gen.eris rule cannot he applied to I11atn in the
definition of "estate" in Art. 31A(2)(a) because panicular
categories like "jagir, inam or tnuafP'i are included in the defini-
tion expressly even though the r11le n1ay apply to ''other sin1ilar
grants" which expression may take its colour from the cate-
gories named. The ejusdem generis rule is applicable \\'here a
wide or general tern1 has to be cut do\Vn \Vith reference to the
genus of the particular terms \\'hich precede the general ,..,·ords.
250
·l
-
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
251
ClvIL
APPELLATE
Appeals Nos. 474 to 501,
514 and 515 of 1959.
JURISDICTION
Civil
503 to 505, 508 to 512,
Appeals from the judgment and orders dated
November, 28, 1956, in 0. J.C. No. 213 of 1955 and
dated December 4, 1956, pf the Orissa High Court
in 0. J. C. Nos. 214 to 216, 218, 236 to 241, 244 to
248, 251, 261 to 264, 268, 269, 271, 279 to 282, 304
to 306, 318, 323, 324, 353, 357, 363 and 372 of 1955.
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and M. S. K. Sastri,
for the appellants (in C. As. Nos. 474-487, 489-501
503-505 and 508-510 of 1959).
M. S. K. Sastri, for the appell&nt ( In C. A.
No. 488/1959).
G. C. Mathur, for the appellants (In C. As.
Nos. 511, 512, 514 and 515 of 1959.)
0. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India,
B. R. L. Iyengar and T.M. Sen, for the respondents.
1961. August 22. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
HrnAYATULLAH, J.-These are 38 appeals
against the judgment and orders of the High Court
of Orissa dated November 28, 1956, by which 42
petitions under Art. 2~6 of the Constitution filed
by the present appellants and some others were
dismissed. The High Court certified the cases as fit
•
for appeal to this Court under Art. 132(1) of the
\ Constitution.
The appellants are holders of pre-settlement
minor inams in the State of Orissa.
Their gr<ints
are different both in regard to the time when they
were made and the lands involved in them. They
were made for performance of services ·of dPi ti< ·s
and were classed as Devadayam grants in the
revenue papers. The grants in all these cases were
._,, _ not of whole villages but of certain lands and hence
their classification as minor inams, and they
comprised both the melwaram and kudiwaram rights
1961
M ahant SanJcarar.,,.,,
Ramunuja Daa
Go-•wamf ttc. eto.
v.
The Stat1 of Orisaa
H idagatullah ,1.
1911
Mahnnt Sankdrshan
Ramanuj'a Das
Goswam·i Clo. eio.
v.
The State of Orissa
Hidayatullah J.
252
SUPREME COURT REExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.