1956 (2) TMI 57 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellants are "intermediaries" as defined in Section 2(h) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act.
2. Whether the properties of the appellants are "estates" as defined in Section 2(g) of the Act.
3. Whether the forest areas within the properties are part of the "estates."
4. Whether the Act is protected under Article 31A of the Constitution.
5. Whether the Act is discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the appellants are "intermediaries" as defined in Section 2(h) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act:
The appellants argued that they were not intermediaries as per the definition in Section 2(h) of the Act, which includes zamindars within the meaning of any wajib-ul-arz, sanad, deed, or other instrument. The court examined historical documents and reports, concluding that the appellants Shri Biswambhar Singh and Shri Janardhan Singh were not intermediaries as their properties did not fall within the definition of "estate" in Section 2(g). Consequently, the State Government had no jurisdiction to issue notifications under Section 3 concerning their properties. However, for Shri Sibanarayan Singh Mahapatra of Nagra, the court found that an Ekrarnama executed in 1879 established him as an intermediary, thus validating the State's notification under Section 3.

2. Whether the properties of the appellants are "estates" as defined in Section 2(g) of the Act:
The court determined that the properties of Shri Biswambhar Singh and Shri Janardhan Singh were not "estates" as defined in Section 2(g) because they were not held by intermediaries. However, for Shri Sibanarayan Singh Mahapatra, the court found that his property, Nagra, was an estate within the meaning of Section 2(g) due to the Ekrarnama, which established a fixed annual rent payable to the Raja of Gangpur.

3. Whether the forest areas within the properties are part of the "estates":
The court agreed with the High Court's decision that the forest lands within the Nagra Zamindari estate were included in the estate held by the Zamindar under the Raja of Gangpur. The geographical inclusion of the forest tracts within the estate boundaries and the lack of evidence to suggest they were treated separately supported this conclusion.

4. Whether the Act is protected under Article 31A of the Constitution:
The court did not delve deeply into the applicability of Article 31A, as it was not necessary for the disposition of the appeals. However, it noted the differing opinions of the High Court judges on this matter, with the majority view supporting the Act's protection under Article 31A.

5. Whether the Act is discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution:
The appellants argued that Section 3 of the Act, which gave the State Government discretion to issue notifications, was discriminatory and violated Article 14. The court found that the discretion was not absolute or unfettered, as it had to be exercised in light of the Act's policy to abolish intermediary rights. The court agreed with the majority view of the High Court that there was no violation of Article 14, as the discretion was necessary to manage the administrative task of taking over estates.

Conclusion:
Appeals Nos. 167 and 168 of 1953 were allowed, and the notifications concerning Hemgir and Sarapgarh were quashed. Appeal No. 169 of 1953 was dismissed, upholding the notification for Nagra. The court directed the State of Orissa not to interfere with the possession of Hemgir and Sarapgarh estates under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act.