2009 (4) TMI 1006 - SC - Companies Law

Issues Involved
1. Validity and genuineness of the Hatapatta lease deed dated 25.1.1933.
2. Jurisdiction and power of the OEA Collector and the Board of Revenue under Sections 5(i) and 8(1) of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951.
3. Classification and possession status of the disputed land.
4. Allegations of fraud and manipulation of documents.
5. Effect of the High Court's order in OJC 2063 of 1992.
6. Applicability of the Orissa Communal Forest and Private Lands (Prohibitions of Alienation) Act, 1948.

Detailed Analysis

1. Validity and Genuineness of the Hatapatta Lease Deed
The disputed lease of 53.95 acres of land was executed by Hatapatta dated 25.1.1933 by erstwhile intermediaries in favor of Kamala Devi. The respondent claimed to be the successor in interest of Kamala Devi. The Hatapatta is an unregistered document. The OEA Collector set aside the lease deed on 6.1.1971, finding it not genuine and created to defeat the Act's purpose. This order was upheld by the Additional District Magistrate, Puri on 28.5.1974. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh examination, but the genuineness of the lease was never conclusively established.

2. Jurisdiction and Power of the OEA Collector and Board of Revenue
The High Court in OJC 2063 of 1992 held that the OEA Collector had no jurisdiction to decide the actual possession and make recommendations to the Board of Revenue, as the lease was executed before 1.1.1946. The Collector's order was quashed, and proceedings before the Board of Revenue were declared non est. The Supreme Court noted that the OEA Collector's order required confirmation by the Board of Revenue, which was not done, making the lease deed non-final.

3. Classification and Possession Status of the Disputed Land
The land was classified as uncultivable Anabadi Land and described as Jhudi jungle (bushy forest) in the 1930-31 records. The OEA Collector found the lands lying fallow without physical possession by any person. Kamala Devi was not cultivating the land, thus not a 'Raiyat' under the Act. The High Court's order in OJC 2063 of 1992 did not address the genuineness of the lease or actual possession.

4. Allegations of Fraud and Manipulation of Documents
The Power of Attorney holder allegedly tampered with documents to alienate the property fraudulently. The Crime Branch CID's interim report indicated manipulation and prima facie offenses under various sections of IPC. The sale deed was impounded for evasion of stamp duty. The Supreme Court emphasized that fraud vitiates every solemn act and highlighted the need for the State to pursue the matter seriously to punish the erring officials and involved parties.

5. Effect of the High Court's Order in OJC 2063 of 1992
The High Court's order was misinterpreted by the respondent, claiming tenancy rights over the entire disputed land. The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court's order only referred to certain inquiries about possession of 7 acres of land, not the entire 53.95 acres. The High Court's order did not establish Kamala Devi or her successors as tenants under Section 8(1) of the Act.

6. Applicability of the Orissa Communal Forest and Private Lands (Prohibitions of Alienation) Act, 1948
The Act prohibits alienation of communal, forest, and private lands without prior sanction. The disputed land, being classified as forest land, falls under this Act. Any transaction without compliance is void. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to re-consider the matter, taking into account the observations and the applicability of this Act.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals to the extent of directing the High Court to re-hear the matter, considering the observations about fraud, the necessity of confirmation by the Board of Revenue, and the applicability of the Orissa Communal Forest and Private Lands (Prohibitions of Alienation) Act, 1948. The State was urged to take serious actions against fraudulent activities and involved officials.

← Previous Next →