LexT. V. V. NARASIMHAM AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF ORISSA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1962
Anakapalla Co-
tierative Agricultural
and Industrial
Socie~y Ltd.
v.
lVorknun
'Jajendragi1dkar, J.
1962
Ottob1r, 24.
750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
that in cases of this kind, the workmen must get
retrenchment compensation and re-employment al-
most simultaneously is inconsistent with the very basis
of the concept of retrenchment compensation. We
are therefore, satisfied that the general principles of
social justice and fair play on which this alternative
argument is based, do not justify the claim made by
the respondents.
In the result, the appeal is allowed and the
award is set aside.
There would be no order as to
costs.
Appeal allnwed.
--
T. V. V. NARASIMHAM AND OTHERS
v.
THE STATE OF ORISSA
(S. K. DAS, K. SUBRA RAO and N, RAJAGOPALA
AYYANGAR, J.J.)
Estate1J Abolition-Estates recogniaed by the Governmtnt-
"Recognition", meaning of-Mere inaction, if amounts to
recognitiun-Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 (1 of 1908),
s. 3(2)\d).
The Government of Orissa, treating the villages in ques·
tion as estates, issued notifications under the provisions cf the
Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1952, declaring that the said
estates became vested in the State free from all encumbrancei
from the dates specified therein. The inamdars of the respective
\"illages challenged ~he legality of t~e notifications by filing
petitions in the High Court of Onssa under~·-226 of the
Constitution of India on the ground that the said mams were
not estates within the meaning of s. 3(2)(d) of the Madras
Estates Land Act, 1908, as they were excluded from the assets
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
751
of the Jcypore Zamindari or Kot pad Paragana at the time of
the settlements, that they were neither confirmed nor recognised
by the British Government, and that, therefore, they were not
liable to be abolished under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act.
In respect of the villages held within the geographical limits of
theJeypore Zamindari, an enquiry was made by the Govern-
ment as to whether they should be enfranchised, but, on objec-
tions raised by the Zamindar, the Government passed an order
on Novrmber 1, 1919, deciding not to take further action.
As
regards the other villages, there was no evidence to show that
the Government had directed any enquiry into the titles of the
said inams or did any act dehors the enquiry to recognize their
titles. The High Court took the view that mere inaction on the
part of the Government amounted to recognition of the grants
in favour of the inamdars and that the villages in question were
recognized by the British Government withins. 3(2)(d) of the
Madras Estates Land Act.
Held,that under s. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land
Act, 1908, "recognition" meant an acknowledgement by t!ie
Government of the title of a grantee expressly or by some un-
equivocal act on its part. .:\cquiescence in the context of certain
surrounding circumstances may amount to recognition. but it
must be such as to lead to that inevitable conclusion.
~.fere
inaction dehors such compelling circumstances cannot ainount to
recognition within the meaning of the section.
Inam Rules framed by the Government in 1859 providing
for an enquiry and directing the confirmation of title on the
basis of possession, laid dovvn only a procedure for ascertaining
the titles and did not proprio vtgore confer title on, or recognize
the title of, any inamdar.
Held, further, that the order of the Government dated
November 1, 1919, amounted to a recognition of the inamdar\
title, but that as regards the other inamdars in respect of whom
no enquiry had been made, the High Court errecl in holding
that the Government bad recognized their inams.
Secretary of State .for India v. Bhavmnurt!ty, (I 912) 24
M. L.J. 538 and Sam v. liamalinga Mudaliar, (1916) I. L R
40 Mad. 664, approved.
Observations in Mantrava<li Bha11ana.rayana v.
1~fet11g11
Venkata<fo, I. L. R. [19541 Macl. 116 and P. V. Namyana R~,,,
v. State of Orissa, I. L. R. [1956] Cuttack 348, that mere
inaction on the part of the (;overnmF-nt Y.'0tild constitute recog-
nition, disapproved.
'
1962
T.Y.Y.Nanuimlwm
v.
Sl4t. of Orissa
752
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
1962
CIVIL
APPELLA'l'E
JURISDICTION
:
Appeals Nos. l 47 to 157 of 1962.
Civil
T.V.V, )'{arasimham
v.
Stat1 ofOrisso
Appeals from the judgment and order dated
January :1, 1B:'i7, of the Orissa High Court in 0.J. C.
Nos. 71, 95, 75, 68, 69, 72, 74Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.