RAGHUNATHE JEW AT BHAPUR versus BASANTHA KUMAR SAHU AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 443 · Decided: 09-12-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

)' 
RAGHUNATHE JEW AT BHAPUR 
v. 
BASANTHA KUMAR SAHU AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 9, 1998 
[MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND MR. G.B. PATTANAIK JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Articles 226 & 227-Interference with findings 
of an inferior tribunal-Issue not raised earlier-Entertained by High Court-
Held : High Cvurt exceeded its jurisdiction-Commitled gross error in 
interfering. 
Orissa Estate Abolition Act I952/0rissa Estate Abolition (Amendment) 
Act 1970-Sections 3 A(/) and Sections 6, 7, 8-Notification issued-
Declaring intermediatary interests of deity's land-Vested in State free from 
A 
B 
c 
all encumbrances-On application being filed, on behalf of deity, Tribunal 
declared the deity as 'trust estate '-Another notification issued-Declared D 
intermediary interests of intermediaries whose estate declared as trusts estate 
vested in State free from all encumbrances-Application filed for settlement 
of land with deity,-Objections invited-Collector rejected the objections 
and directed the land to be settled with the deity-No appeal filed by 
respondent-Revision filed after 7 years dismissed by Board of Revenue- E 
High Court on the basis of roving enquiry set aside the order of the Collector-
Held-High Court exceeded its supervisory jurisdiction. 
A Notification issued on 27.2.68 under Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 
1952, directed that Debottar Land attached to the appellant Deity vested in 
the State free from all encumbrances. On behalf of the Deity, an application F 
was made before the tribunal and the tribunal which declared the deity as 
a "trust estate". On 18th March, 1974, under Section 3A(l) of the Act 
another notification was issued, declaring that the intermediary interest of 
all the intermediaries whose estate have been declared as trust estate vested 
in the state free from all encumbrances. 
G 
Application was filed under Sections 6, 7, 8 of the Act on behalf of the 
deity for settlement of land with the Deity. Objections filed by the private 
respondents to the said application were rejected by the Collector. The 
respondents never took the stand that the intermediary estate in question did 
not vest under the notification of 1974 as it had already vested pursuant to 
443 
H 
444 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A earlier notification of 1968 and it had not been declared as trust estate. No 
appeal was filed. After seven years the respondents invoked Revisional 
jurisdiction of the member, Board of Revenue, but without success. The High 
Court allowed the writ petition preferred by the respondents holding that the 
respondents have acquired an occupancy right over the land in question. 
B 
c 
Before this court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the 
High Court exceeded its supervisory jurisdiction· by making a roving enquiry 
and that the respondents are not entitled to approach the High Court taking 
a new stand which was not taken before the Estate Abolition Collector. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court committed an error in interfering with 
the conclusions arrived at by the Estate Abolition Collector and affirmed by 
the Member, Board of Revenue. [448-C-DJ 
1.2. High Court was not justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to 
D the statP of things that happened on the basis of the notification of the year 
1968. (448-AJ 
1.3. The High Court recorded a finding because of non production of 
the relevant record that there was no declaration of "trust estate" on 26.9. 70. 
When the respondents did not raise this question before the Estate Abolition 
E Collector, it was not open for the High Court to go into that question at all. 
F 
G 
H 
Then again without any material to substantiate a claim of occupancy tenancy 
over the land in question, the High Court came to a conclusion that the 
respondents had acquired occupancy right in the land and such a conclusion 
cannot be sustained in law. [448-A-CI 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5282 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.92 of the Orissa High Court 
in O.J.C. No. 2030 of 1987. 
P.N. Misra and Mrs. Rekha Palli for the Appellant. 
Janaranjan Das and Radha Shyam Jena for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PATTANAIK, .I. The appellant is a public deity and in this appeal the 
RAGHUNATHE JEW AT BHAPUR v. B.K. SAHU [PATTANAIK, J.] 
445 
Judgment dated 13.11.92 of the Orissa High Court in Original Jurisdiction Case A 
No. 2030 of 1987 is being challenged. The deit

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