9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 - Sections 5 and 7 2. Validity of settlement of land in favor of sons of intermediary 3. Application of Section 7 for retention of land by intermediaries 4. Legal consequences of vesting of estate in the State 5. Maintenance of possession rights of intermediaries Interpretation of Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 - Sections 5 and 7: The case involved the interpretation of Sections 5 and 7 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951. Section 5 specified the consequences of the vesting of an estate in the State, transferring all rights to the State free from encumbrances. On the other hand, Section 7 provided exceptions for intermediaries to retain certain lands for cultivation purposes. The Court emphasized that Section 7 must be strictly construed, allowing retention only for lands in cultivating possession of intermediaries on the date of vesting. The term "khas possession" was defined to mean land used for agricultural or horticultural purposes, involving cultivation by the intermediary or their agents. The judgment highlighted that non-agricultural land was not eligible for retention under Section 7, and settlement applications for such lands were not maintainable. Validity of settlement of land in favor of sons of intermediary: The Court examined the validity of settling land in favor of the sons of the intermediary under Section 7 of the Act. It was noted that the settlement in question was not legally sound as the nature of the land was non-agricultural, rendering it ineligible for settlement under Section 7. Additionally, the settlement was deemed flawed as two of the sons had passed away before the settlement was granted, indicating a lack of proper consideration of legal principles. The judgment concluded that the settlement made in favor of the ex-intermediary sons was legally invalid. Application of Section 7 for retention of land by intermediaries: The Court clarified that Section 7 of the Act allowed intermediaries to retain specific lands for agricultural or horticultural purposes, subject to certain conditions. The judgment highlighted that the land in question, being non-agricultural, did not meet the criteria for retention under Section 7. Therefore, any settlement granted for such land was considered legally untenable. Legal consequences of vesting of estate in the State: The Court reiterated that upon the issuance of a notification under Section 3 of the Act, the lands of intermediaries vested in the State of Orissa. Section 5 outlined the legal consequences of vesting, transferring all specified rights to the State without encumbrances. It was emphasized that intermediaries ceased to have any rights over the vested land, allowing the State to exercise possession rights as deemed necessary. Maintenance of possession rights of intermediaries: The judgment underscored that under the Act, intermediaries lost their possession rights upon vesting of the land in the State. Even if not physically dispossessed, intermediaries were considered to be out of possession, enabling the State to take possession as per the law. The Court clarified that the State had the authority to revoke settlements that were legally invalid, as was the case with the settlement granted to the sons of the intermediary. In conclusion, the Court set aside the order and judgment under challenge, allowing the appeal with no order as to costs.
|
