STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. versus HARAPRIYA BISOI

Citation: [2009] 7 S.C.R. 34 · Decided: 20-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 7 S.C.R. 34 
A 
STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. 
"' 
v. 
HARAPRIYA BISOI 
Civil Appeal No. 2656 of 2009 
B 
APRIL 20, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH 
PANTA, JJ] 
Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951- ss. 8, 2(h), 2(n) and 3 
c 
- Claim for protection as 'raiyat' - Property classified as 
uncultivable, vested in State by virtue of notification issued 
under the Act - Claim of Respondent that ex-intermediaries 
in respect of the property had leased the same to her 
predecessor-in-interest, who, immediately before vesting of 
the same in the State Government, was thus in possession of 
D the property as a tenant under an intermediary i.e. was a 'raiyat' 
under the Act, and from date of the vesting, was a deemed 
tenant under the State Government and consequently 
Respondent too was a deemed tenant under the State 
Government and entitled to protection of his possession - Writ 
E petition filed by respondent allowed by High Court - Order 
challenged - Plea raised that High Court lost sight of the 
relevant provisions of the Act and did not consider the effect 
of alleged gross acts of fraud committed by the respondent -
Held: On facts, matter needs to be re-considered by the High 
F Court. 
Words and Phrases - Fraud - Meaning and effect of -
Discussed - Indian Contract Act, 1872 - s. 17. 
By virtue of a Notification issued in 1954 under 
G Section 3 of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951, the 
disputed property vested in the State. Respondent 
~ 
claimed that in 1933, the ex-intermediaries in respect of 
the said property had leased the same to her predecessor-
in-interest , who, immediately before vesting of the same 
H 
34 
STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. V. HARAPRIYA BISOI 
35 
1 
in the State Government, was thus in possession of the A 
property as a tenant under an intermediary i.e. was a 
'raiyat' under the Act, and from date of the vesting, was a 
deemed tenant under the State Government and 
consequently Respondent (who bought the disputed 
property from her predecessor-in-interest) too was a B 
deemed tenant under the State Government and thus 
-• 
entitled to protection of his possession. In regard to the 
said claim, Respondent filed writ petition seeking direction 
to the State to accept rent from her in respect of the 
disputed property, for a declaration of tenancy in her c 
favour and for an injunction against the State restraining 
them from interfering with her possession. The High Court 
allowed the writ petition. 
+ 
In appeals to this Court, the judgment of the High 
Court was inter alia challenged on grounds that the High D 
Court lost sight of the relevant provisions of the Act and 
did not consider the effect of the alleged gross acts of 
fraud committed by the respondent . 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1.1. A 'lease' and 'lessee' on the one hand are 
defined separately from the 'Raiyat' under the. Orissa 
' 
Estate Abolition Act, 1951 Act. Thus, the mere execution 
of a lease by the intermediary in favour of a person would 
not confer the status of a 'raiyat' on the lessee nor would F 
protect the possession of such lessee under Section 8 of 
the Act. In fact, a 'lease' would amount to a transfer of an 
interest of the intermediary in the land to the lessee. In 
such a situation, far from being a tenant protected under 
Section 8, the lessee would in fact step into the shoes of G 
the intermediary with his interest being liable for 
confiscation and his entitlement limited to compensation 
from the State. On the other hand, for protection under 
Section 8, one has to be a Raiyat cultivating the land 
directly and having the rights of occupancy under the H 
36 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009]7 S.C.R. 
A tenancy laws of the State. Thus, a 'lessee' who is not 
actually cultivating the land i.e. who is not a 'raiyat', would 
not be within the protection of Section 8 of the Act. Section 
2(h) of the Act in its residuary part states that 'intermediary' 
would cover all owners or holders of interest in land 
B between the raiyat and the State. [Para 21) [48-H; 49-A-D) 
1.2. On the facts of the present case, it is clear that 
the land was not under cultivation by the predecessor-in-
interest of the respondent. As per the record of rights 
published in 1930-31, the disputed land is classified as 
C Anabadi Land i.e. uncultivable. The land is further 
described in the records as Jhudi jungle, i.e. bush forest. 
In addition, the OEA Collector had found that the lands 
were lying fallow and 

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