STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR. versus FAKIR CHARAN SETHI DEAD THROUGH LRS AND ORS.

Citation: [2014] 12 S.C.R. 1120 · Decided: 09-10-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
[2014] 12 S.C.R. 1120 
STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR. 
v. 
FAKIR CHARAN SETHI DEAD THROUGH LRS AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1812-1815 of 2014) 
OCTOBER 9, 2014 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 - s.8 - Requirement 
u/s. 8 for being recognized as tenants under the State 
C Government - Benefit of continuity of tenure -
When 
available - Held: To confer the benefit of continuity of tenure 
to the tenant, possession as well as cultivation of the land are 
relevant as on the date of vesting of the land under the Act. 
D 
Judgment/order- Correctness and authenticity of- Held: 
Judicial order must be based on strong foundational facts free 
from any doubt as regards the correctness and authenticity 
thereof. 
E 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD:1. What is relevant under Section 8(1) of the 
Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951, to confer the benefit of 
continuity of tenure to the tenant is possession as well 
as cultivation of the land as on the date of vesting. 
F Therefore what was required to be established by the 
plaintiffs in the present <:ase is cultivation by the 
predecessors of the plaintiffs in the year 1954 when the 
land had vested in the State notwithstanding the status 
of the land as shown in the Record of Rights. No specific 
G evidence in this regard has been laid by the plaintiff 
(PW1) except a bald and ominous claim that the land was 
cultivated by his father. Since the plaintiffs had failed to 
prove possession and cultivation as on the date of 
vesting, the same, irrespective of any other question, will 
H 
1120 
STATE OF ORISSA v. FAKIR CHARAN SETHI DEAD1121 
THROUGH LRS 
disentitle the plaintiffs to the reliefs sought in the suit. The 
A 
plaintiffs' suit is liable to be dismissed and the decree 
granting relief to the plaintiffs is required to be reversed. 
[Paras 14, 16] [1129-G-H; 1130-A-C; 1131-C) 
State of Orissa & Ors. vs. Harapriya Bisoi, 2009 (12) SCC 
B 
378: 2009 (7) SCR 34 - relied on. 
2. The appellant- State had raised a specific plea of 
forgery and fabrication of the documents relied upon by 
the plaintiffs. The High Court ought to have investigated 
the matter a little further instead of summarily holding the 
C 
objections of the State to be mere claims or assertions 
of fraud without legal proof. On the slightest of doubt or 
even prima facie proof of fraud, the matter must .be 
thoroughly investigated by the court to arrive at the truth. 
Judicial order must be based on strong foundational facts o 
free from any doubt as regards the correctness and 
authenticity thereof. [Para 15] [1130-C, D, G, H] 
Case Law Reference: 
2009 (7) SCR 34 
relied on 
Para 11 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
1812-1815 of 2010. 
E 
From the judgment and order dated 30.07.2009 of the 
High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in F.A. No. 10 of 2001 and W.P. 
F 
(C ) Nos. 7434, 7962 and 8874 of 2008. 
Tushar Mehta, ASG., Subir Palit, Milind Kumar for the 
Appellants. 
Jaideep Gupta, Ratnakar Dash, P.N. Misra, Sibo Sankar 
G 
Mishra, Abhijit Sengupta, Balaji Srinivasan, Charu Mathur for 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
1122 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. Civil Appeal No. 1812 of 2010 
arising from the common judgment and order dated 30.7.2009 
passed by the High Court of Orissa in F.A.No.1 O of 2001 
affirming the decree dated 29.7.2000 passed by the learned 
Trial Court may be conveniently treated as the main appeal for 
B consideration. In that event the fate of the connected appeals 
would stand determined by the outcome of the aforesaid Civil 
Appeal i.e. C.A. No.1812 of 2010. 
2. The respondents 1 and 2, as plaintiffs, instituted Title 
C Suit No.620 of 1998 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, (Senior 
Division) Bhubaneswar seeking a declaration of occupancy 
rights in their favour as well as for affirmation of their 
possession as tenants in respect of the suit land. A further 
direction to the defendants 1 and 2 (appellants) to accept rent 
from the plaintiffs and a permanent restraint against interference 
D in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land was also 
sought in the suit filed. 
3. The short case of the plaintiffs( respondents) before the 
learned Trial Court was to the effect that their father Nidhi Sethi 
E who served under the Ex-ruler of Kanika Raja as a washer man 
was granted lease of the suit land measuring 4.16 acres 
covered under Sabik Plot No.29
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.