# JAGANNATH BEHERA AND OTHERS v. RAJA HARIHAR SINGH MARDARAJ BHRAMARBARA ROY

- **Citation:** [1958] 1 S.C.R. 1067
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1958
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/jagannath-behera-and-others-v-raja-harihar-singh-mardaraj-bhramarbara-roy-1394
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
JAGANNATH BEHERA AND OTHERS
v.
RAJA HARIHAR SINGH
MARDARAJ BHRAMARBARA ROY
1067
(BHAGWATI, B. P. SINHA,
JAFER
IMAM, J. L. KAPUR and
GAJENDRAGADKAR JJ.)
Merger Agreement-Private property of Ruler-Legislation restricting ejectment of tenants-If violates guarantee of
full ownership, use and enjoyment-Jurisdiction of Courts in
di.Spute be.tween Ruler and tenants-Ruler whether a landlord
-Orissa Tenants Protection Act, 1948 (Orissa III of 1948), ss.
2(a) and (g)-Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act, 1950 (Orissa
IV of 1950), ss. 7(a) and (h)-Constitution of India, Arts. 19(1)
(f), 363.
The respondent was the Ruler of the erstwhile State of
Khandapara which merged in the State of Orissa on August 1.
1949. Article 3 qf the Agreement of Merger guaranteed that
"the Raja shall be entitled to full ownership, use and enjoyment of all his private properties". The OrissaMerged States'
(Laws) Act, 1950 extended the Orissa Tenant's Protection Act,
1948 to the merged areas. In 1951 the respondents evicted certain tenants. The tenants applied to the Revenue Officer under
the 1948 Act for being restored to possession on the allegations
that the respondent was their landlord and that he had unlawfully evicted them. The Revenue Officer allowed the applications and directed· restoration of possession.
The respondent
filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High
Court for quashing the orders of the Revenue Officer contending, (1) that the application of the provlsions of the 1948 Act
to his private properties violated the guarantee given. under
the Agreement,, (2) that Art. 363 of the Constitution barred· the
Court from dealing with any dispute arising out of the Agreem~nt, and (3) that the 1948 Act did not apply to him as he was
not a ·landlord. The High Court
accepted these contentions
and quashed the proceedings taken under the 1948 Act :
Held, that the extention of the 1948 Act did not affect the
full ownership, use and enjoyment of his properties guaranteed to the respondent under the Agreement. The provisions
of the Agreement only protected· his rights to t.he properties
declared to be his private properties so that they could not be
claimed at anytime thereafter as State properties. The guarantee given under the Agreement could not be absolute but
could only be co-extensive with the right to acquire, hold and
dispose of property which is guaranteed to all citizens under
Art. 19(1)(£) of the Constitution.
State of Bihar v. Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh of
D)3SOI-3(11)
.
1957
Decemher 6.
'1068
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1958]
r957
Darbhang~. [1952] S.C.R. 889 ~nd Visheshwar Rao v. The State of
-
Madhya Pradesh, [1952] S.C.R. 1020, followed.
Jagannath Behera
H Id
h
h . . . di .
f th C
.
h
and o·tJurs
e , t at t e .Juns ct1on o
e
ourts to entertain t e
...
· · applications under the 1948 . Act, was not barred by Art. 363 of
Raja
the Constitution. The dispute between the appellants and responHarihar Singh dent was not a. dispute which arose.· out of the Agreement of
Mardaraj
Merger, and so "!as not eov~red by ,Art. 363.
Bhramarbara Roy
Held further, that the respondent was a landlord to whom
the provisions of the 1948 Act, applied .. Whatever may have
been the definition of the terms landlord and tenant in ss. 2(c)
and (g) of the 1948 Act the definitions contained in s. 7(a) of the
1950 Act, made the appellants •the tenants' and the respondent
'the landlord' in regard to the lands in question.
Bhagwatt ].
'CIVIL Af>P'.i<:LiATE 'Juru;~1c'T10N: Civil Appeal No.
309 of 1955.
· ·
·
· · Appeal fr~m. the· judg~ent' and cird~r dated October 7, 1953, of the.Orissa High Court in O.J.C .. No. 37
of 1952.
·'
· ·. O: K,; Daphtary, · Solicitor-General· of India· and
B~ Sen (B: M. Patnik; Advocate,·. Orissa'High ·. Oourt-:-
with Special Permission of the Oourt. and R.H. Dhebar),
for the appellants Nos. 1, 3 to 9 and 11 to 16 and the
intervener.
: ' .
. H. ]lahapatra and. Gyan' Ohand .Mathur, for the
respondent. . · ·

## Text

S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
JAGANNATH BEHERA AND OTHERS
v.
RAJA HARIHAR SINGH
MARDARAJ BHRAMARBARA ROY
1067
(BHAGWATI, B. P. SINHA,
JAFER
IMAM, J. L. KAPUR and
GAJENDRAGADKAR JJ.)
Merger Agreement-Private property of Ruler-Legislation restricting ejectment of tenants-If violates guarantee of
full ownership, use and enjoyment-Jurisdiction of Courts in
di.Spute be.tween Ruler and tenants-Ruler whether a landlord
-Orissa Tenants Protection Act, 1948 (Orissa III of 1948), ss.
2(a) and (g)-Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act, 1950 (Orissa
IV of 1950), ss. 7(a) and (h)-Constitution of India, Arts. 19(1)
(f), 363.
The respondent was the Ruler of the erstwhile State of
Khandapara which merged in the State of Orissa on August 1.
1949. Article 3 qf the Agreement of Merger guaranteed that
"the Raja shall be entitled to full ownership, use and enjoyment of all his private properties". The OrissaMerged States'
(Laws) Act, 1950 extended the Orissa Tenant's Protection Act,
1948 to the merged areas. In 1951 the respondents evicted certain tenants. The tenants applied to the Revenue Officer under
the 1948 Act for being restored to possession on the allegations
that the respondent was their landlord and that he had unlawfully evicted them. The Revenue Officer allowed the applications and directed· restoration of possession.
The respondent
filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High
Court for quashing the orders of the Revenue Officer contending, (1) that the application of the provlsions of the 1948 Act
to his private properties violated the guarantee given. under
the Agreement,, (2) that Art. 363 of the Constitution barred· the
Court from dealing with any dispute arising out of the Agreem~nt, and (3) that the 1948 Act did not apply to him as he was
not a ·landlord. The High Court
accepted these contentions
and quashed the proceedings taken under the 1948 Act :
Held, that the extention of the 1948 Act did not affect the
full ownership, use and enjoyment of his properties guaranteed to the respondent under the Agreement. The provisions
of the Agreement only protected· his rights to t.he properties
declared to be his private properties so that they could not be
claimed at anytime thereafter as State properties. The guarantee given under the Agreement could not be absolute but
could only be co-extensive with the right to acquire, hold and
dispose of property which is guaranteed to all citizens under
Art. 19(1)(£) of the Constitution.
State of Bihar v. Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh of
D)3SOI-3(11)
.
1957
Decemher 6.
'1068
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1958]
r957
Darbhang~. [1952] S.C.R. 889 ~nd Visheshwar Rao v. The State of
-
Madhya Pradesh, [1952] S.C.R. 1020, followed.
Jagannath Behera
H Id
h
h . . . di .
f th C
.
h
and o·tJurs
e , t at t e .Juns ct1on o
e
ourts to entertain t e
...
· · applications under the 1948 . Act, was not barred by Art. 363 of
Raja
the Constitution. The dispute between the appellants and responHarihar Singh dent was not a. dispute which arose.· out of the Agreement of
Mardaraj
Merger, and so "!as not eov~red by ,Art. 363.
Bhramarbara Roy
Held further, that the respondent was a landlord to whom
the provisions of the 1948 Act, applied .. Whatever may have
been the definition of the terms landlord and tenant in ss. 2(c)
and (g) of the 1948 Act the definitions contained in s. 7(a) of the
1950 Act, made the appellants •the tenants' and the respondent
'the landlord' in regard to the lands in question.
Bhagwatt ].
'CIVIL Af>P'.i<:LiATE 'Juru;~1c'T10N: Civil Appeal No.
309 of 1955.
· ·
·
· · Appeal fr~m. the· judg~ent' and cird~r dated October 7, 1953, of the.Orissa High Court in O.J.C .. No. 37
of 1952.
·'
· ·. O: K,; Daphtary, · Solicitor-General· of India· and
B~ Sen (B: M. Patnik; Advocate,·. Orissa'High ·. Oourt-:-
with Special Permission of the Oourt. and R.H. Dhebar),
for the appellants Nos. 1, 3 to 9 and 11 to 16 and the
intervener.
: ' .
. H. ]lahapatra and. Gyan' Ohand .Mathur, for the
respondent. . · · .
. ·.
: · · .
·
. ·
· 1957. December 6. 'The following Judgment of the
Court was. delivered by·
· · . · ·
. ·
··
· BHAGWATi J.-· This appe~l with a certificate unde~
Arts. 132 and I33(l)(c) of the Constitution arises out
of a writ petition filed by the respondent in the, High
Court of Orissa under Art: 226 seeking to quash the
proceedings taken by certain tenants of his private
lands . under· the provisions . of. the Orissa . Tenants'
Protection· Act, 1948 (Orissa III of 1948), hereinafter
referred to as the·l948 Act.
·
·
· The respondent was the ruler ·of the . erstwhile
Khandapara. State which merged with the Province of
Orissa under the States' Merger (Governor's Provinces)
Order, 1949 with effect from August 1, 1949. The respondent had on December 14, 1947 entered into an
agreement. with the Governor-Genernl of India art, 3
whereof vrovided that;
':
•
S.U.H.
SUP.RE.ME UOUHT ltEPOR'tS
I OU!}
"'The Raja shall be entitled to full ownership, use, and
w.;r
.
I
enjoyment of ail private properties (as distinct from State .f"!'"""at'• 11.1,,,,,
Properties) belonging to him on the date of the agreement."
""'
1v~tli· ; .. ,
Raj11
That article further provided that if any dispute arose
JJ11ri/1ar Hi1!u"
I I
.
f
h
.
.
Jfari{ma~
as to w 1ct ier any item o . property was t e private property n.~ .. 1.marhara Uu"
of the Raja or State property, it shall be referred to' such offi111"•amori J.
ccr with judicial experience as the Dominion Government
might nominate and the decision of that officer shall be final
and binding on both parties. The respondent claimed a. number of properties and the matter was referred to the Adviser
for Orissa States for determining
whether all the items
claimed by him could be regarded as his private properties.
On June 10. 1949, the Adviser communicated his decision
that_ the respondent was entitled to
1,643 acres as his
K hai11ar lands and 29 and odd acres as lands settled with· his
tcna1\ts.
The lands comprised in the present proceedings
ta ken •under the 1948 Act as aforesaid were peclared to be
the private properties of the respondent.
On March 3. 1950, the Orissa
Legislature passed the
Orissa Merged States' (Laws) Act. 1950 (Orissa IV of 1950>
hereinafter referred to as "the 1950 Act". Section 4 of that
Act extended inter alia the 1948 Act to the areas merged in
the absorbing Province of Orissa. Section 7 ,provided for the
modification of tenancy Jaws in force in the merged States;
The relevant provisions of that section so far as they arc
ma leria 1 for the purposes of this appeal
may be set out
herein:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in the tenancy
laws of the merged States as continued in force by virtue of
article 4 of the States Merger (Governor's Provinces) Order,
1949:
(a) all
~uits and proceeedings between landlord and
t<.:nant as such shall be instituted and tried in revenue courts.
Explanation : In this clause the expression "landlord ..
shall mean a person immediately under whom a tenant holds
land, and the expression "ten;rnt" shall mean a person who
holds land under another person and is or, but for a special
1070
SUPREME COURT REPOitTi:l
L1!!5!! J
1957
contract, would be liable to pay rent for that land to that
Jaga1'nath Bekt11 person:
and Others
v.
Raja
Harihar Singh
Mardaraj
Bhramarbara Rog
BhagU1atiJ,
(h) when a person holds K!iamar, nij-jote or any other
private lands of a Ruler, which has been recognised as such
by the Provincial Government, he shall not be liable to ejectment but shall be liable to pay such fair and equitable rent
as may be fixed by any competent authority appointed in this
behalf by the Revenue Commissioner or the Commissioner,
Northern Division, as the ..:ase may be and thereupon he shall
acquire right of occupancy in respect of such lands: "
On April 14, 195 J, the State Legislatqre passed the
Orissa Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act, 195 J (Orissa
XVII of 1951) whereby the date the "!st day of September,
1947" wherever it was used in the 1950 Act, was substituted
by the "lst day of August. 1949" for .the purposes of the
merged States areas and it was further provided that in such
areas whe1 c neither the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, nor
the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913 was in force the special laws
or customs prevailing therein shall be taken into consideration for the application of that Act.
It appears that certain tenants who were in occupation
of the private lands of the respondent were evicted by him
during the year J 951 and other tenants were inducted by him
and put in possession of the lands.
The tenants who were
thus evicted applied to the Revenue Officer some time in
1952 for being restored to possession of their tenancy lands
under the provisions of the 1948 Act, alleging that the respondent was their landlord and that he bad unlawfully evicted them from their lands. These were numbered as O.T.P.
Act Cases Nos. 21 to 25 of 1952. 26 to 28 ofl l 952. 29 to 32
of 1952 and 33 to 41 of 1.952. Notice was issued tOI the respondent but it appears that he did not care to enter appearance before the Revenue Officer or to contest the applications. On the ex parte evidence of the Applicants the Revenue Officer directed restoration of possession I<> them hold:
ing lhat they were in possc~sion of the lands as tenants on
S.C.H.
SUPlrJ•J~U} C< IUH'l' n ~PORTS
1071
the I st day of August, 1949. and as such were entitled to the
m•7
benefits conferred by the 1948 Act, as amended in its appli- .Juit''"';;;,}JeJ,.,-u
·
and Otl1er.,
cation to the merged States.
,.,
The respondent thereupon filed a writ petition under JJari,Ji~.:nuTi
Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court seeking to
Jfarrlaraj
.
.
·
h
~ .
JJ/n·f1ma1lrart1 Ruy
quash the
entire
procccdmgs
on
the groun
t at
111
_
respect of the disputed lands he was not a ''landlord" within
Blingwali ·'·
the meaning of the 1948 Act. The petition as filed averred
that the fundamental right conferred upon the respondent by
Art. 19 of the Constitution was infringed, that the provisions
of the 1948 Act which were inconsistent with that article
were void as being ultra vires the Constitution and the orders
passed thereunder by the Revenue Officer were illegal and
liable to be set aside.
This petition was filed by the respondent on August 11,
1952. A further petition was thereafter filed on February
26. 1953 invoking art. 3 of the said Agreement and it was
contended that by the application of the provisions of the
1948 Act. to the said private properties of the respondent,
, the respondent was deprived of the "full ownership, use and
enjoyment" of the properties to which he was entitled under
the said Agreement, and that under Art. 363 of the Constitution, no Court had jurisdiction to deal with any dispute aris"
ing out of any provisions of the said Agreement. The decision of the Revenue Officer was thus called in question and
it was contended that he had no jurisdiction to decide the
dispute as to whether the tenants had any right to the personal properties of the responc:lr11t :incl
~•s such the proceedings were liable to be quashed as being without jurisdiction.
The High Court accepted these contentions of the respondent and allowed the writ petition. It accordingly direct- \
cd the issue of a writ declaring that the proceedings under
the 1948 Act taken by the Revenue Officer were void as
heing without jurisdiction and that they should be quashed.
The tenants then filed an application before the High
Court asking for a certificate under Arts. 132 and 133(1 )(c)
1072
::!UPREME UOU1{1' HEl'Ull'ft:l
ll958]
1957
of the Constitution which was granted by the High Court.
Jagam;;;;;;- Behera The State of Orissa asked for leave to intervene in the appeal
and Other•
which leave was granted by this Court and the learned Soliv.
Raja
citor-General has appeared· before us in support ot the apHarihar Bingk
b h Jf
f h
h
h
]]
.1fard<1raj
peal. both on
e a
o · t. e tenants w o are t e appe ants
Bhr<rnmrbara Roy htrein. and the State of Orissa, the Intervener
Bl<"u s ati J.
lt may be noted at the outset that no question has been
raised in regard ·10 the vires of the 1950 Act. which extended
inter alia the I 948 Act to the areas merged in the absorbing
Province of Orissa. That being so, s. 7(h) of the 1950 Act in
terms would apply to the appellants before us and they would
not be liable to ejectment.
The answer of the respondent, however. is that (I) the
Revenue Court had by virtue of Art. 363 of the Constitution
no jurisdiction in the disputes between the appellants and
him arising out of the provisions of the said Agreement dated
December 14, 1947, (2> that the full ownership use and enjoyment of the properties which was guaranteed to him
under art. 3 of the said Agreement was afkcted by the application of the provisions of the J 948 Act, to the said lands
and (3) that, he was not ·a "landlord" and the appellants were
not the "tenants" within the meaning of the terms as defined
in the 1948 Act, and, that in any event. these lands were not
recognised as such by the Provincial Government which recognition was a condition precedent to the application of
s. 7(h) of the 1950 Act lo these land~ and that therefore the
appellants were not entitled to the protection thereof.
The first two contentions are inter-related and can be
disposed of together. The lands in question were declared
to be the private properties of the respondent and he was
guarunteed under art. 3 of the said Agreement full ownership, use and enjoyment thereof. Article 363 only ousted the
jurisdiction of the courts in regard· to the disputes arising out
of any provisions of the Agreement entered into by the
Rulers of Indian States with the Government of India. The
dispute which had arisen between the appellants and the respondent in the present case could hardly be said to be a dis-
S.O.R.
SUPRBME OOUR1; REPORTS
1073
pute arising out of any provisions of the said Agreement.
19a1
The full ownership, use and enj?yment of ~he properties Jagannath&hcra
which were declared to be the private properties of the resarui Others
pondent was not sought to be affected by extending the 1948
R:ja
Act, to the merged State of Khandapara. The properties Hari!iar Singh
which had been declared to be the private properties of the
.Jfaraaruj
respondent were not claimed as State properties but the Bl.mmarbara Roy
whole legislation proceeded on lhe basis. that the respondent
Bhagwati J.
was the owner of these properties .wherein he had inducted
tenants and what was sought to be done was to enact a measure
for the protection of those tenants. A measure for the protection of the tenants ind.ucted by the respondent could hardly
be said to affect the full ownership. use and enjoyment of
these properties by the respondent.
It no doubt imposed
certain restrictions on the absolute rights which the respondent claimed in regard to the user and enjoyment of the said
properties; but these measures
wer~ imposed upon him in
common with all the citizens of the Union and the justification for the same could be sou!!ht un'der cl. 5 of Art. 19 of
the Constitution.
~
·
Similar contentions which had been raised on behalf of
the erstwhile Rulers, whose States had merged with the Provinces, were answered by this Court in The State. of Bihar v.
Mahm·ajadhiraja Sir Ka111e.1·!11rnr Singh of Darbhanga(') and
in Visweshwar Rao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh(').
Patanjali Sastri C. J. observed in the former case at page
915:
'
"But a short and obvious answer is that there was no
contravention of any guarantee or assurance given by the
Government under the convenant of merger, as the estates in
question are sought to be acquired only as the "private property., of !he Rulers and not otherwise.
The compensation
provided for, such as it is, is in recognition of their private
proprietorship, as in the case of any other owner.··
Mahajan J. (as he then was) observed in the latter case at
page 1041:
"It is true that by the covenant of merger the properties
(') [19~2] S.C.R. 889, !ll5.
(') [Hl52] S.C.R. 10:20. 1041. 1054.
1074
HUPREi\lE UOUR'l' R.MPOR'l'H
Llll58]
1957
of the petitioner became his pri vale properties as distinguishJ•fl"7'nalh Ber..ra ed f.rom properties of the State but in respect of them he is
and Olllera
in no better position than any other owner possessing private
v.
11/Jj• •
property.
Article 362 does not prohibit the acquisition of
Harlliar S•ng1'
.
d 1
d
.
.
b
h
f
Mardaraj
properlles · ec are as pnvate properties
y t e covenant o
BAromarbara Bou merger and does not guarantee their perpetual existence. The
Blmgwuti J.
guarantee contained in the article is of a limited extent only.
It assures tb.at the Rulers' properties declared as their private
properties will not be claimed as State properties. The guarantee has no greater scope than this. That guarantee has been
fully respected by the impugned statute, as it treats those
properties as their private properties and seeks to acquire
them on that assumption. Moreover, it seems to me that in
view of the comprehensive language of article 363 this issue
is not justiciable."
Das J. (as he then was) also observed in that case at page
1054:
"The guarantee or assurance to which due regard is to
be had is limited to personal rights, privileges and dignities
of the Ruler qua a Ruler. It docs not extend to personal
property which is different from personal rights. Further, this
article does not import any legal obligation but is an assurance only. All that the covenant does is to recognise the title
of the Ruler as owner of certain properties. To say that the
Ruler is the owner of certain properties is not to say that
those poperties shall in no circumstances .be acquired by the
State. The fact that his personal properties are sought to be
acquired on payment of compensation clearly recognises his
title just as the titles o_f other proprietors are recognised."
It is clear therefore that neither Art. 363 nor Art. 362
of the Constitution would avail the respondent and the courts
would have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute between the
appellant~ and him which arose out of his action in ejecting
them from his private lands. The provisions of the said
Agreement only protected his rights in the properties declared to be his private
properties so that they could not be
ckiimcd at any time thereafter as Stale properties_ The 1948
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPOR'fS
1075
Act did not dispute his ownership over the same but pro196'1
ceeded on the basis that they were his private properties and Jagan;;;J;Beliem
sought to impose upon him certain obligations in order to
and Oilier•
v.
protect the rights of the tenants whom he had inducted
Raja
Harikar Singh
therein and there was no infringement of the guarantee or
~.Mardaraj
assurances which had been given to him under art. 3 of the Bl.ramarbara Roy
said Agreement: It could not also be urged that by imposing
Bhagwati J.
reasonable restrictions in the interests of the tenants on his
right to acquire, hold and dispose of properties under cl. 5
of Art. 19 of the Constitution, the 1948 Aet affected his
rights of full ownership, use and enjoyment of those properties. If anything was done by extending the 1948 Act to
the merged State of Khandapara, it was done in the interests
of the tenants and it was done for the protection of the tenants who were indueted by him and such restrictions did
not affect the full ownership, use and enjoyment of his private properties, any more than they did in the case of other
owners of lands. As a matter of fact, under the tem1s of the
1950 Act which extended the 1948 Act to the merged State
of Khandapara, he was entitled to the 'payment by the tenants of such fair and equitable rent as may be fixed by any
competent authority appointed in this behalf by the Revenue
Commissioner or the Commissioner of the Northern Division
as the case may be and so Jong as the tenants continued to
pay such rent he was no worse off than were other proprietors of lands. The tenants would no doubt acquire rights of
occupancy in respect of such lands but the acquisition of the
occupancy rights by the tenants would not be calculated to
affect his right to full ownership, use and enjoyment of his
lands. because he would be entitled to eject the occupancy
tenants also if the tenants used the lands comprised in their
holdings in any manner which rendered them unfit. for the
purposes of the tenancy or committed a breach of conditions
consistent with the provisions of the tenancy laws in force in
the merged State concerned on breach whereof they were
under the terms of the contract between themselves and the
landlord liable to be ejected. As already stated' these restric-
1076
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1958]
'957
these restrictions were for the protection of the tenants
-
who were inducted on the lands by the erstwhile
J•g;;;·~h~::•ra Rulers themselves and by the extension of the 1948
v.
Act to the merged State of Khandapara, the responRaja
dent was treated in the same manner as any other
Hadhar Si~gh citizen of the Union. ·If at all there was any infringeBh l\Iar~ar•J R
ment of his rights to full ownership, use and enjoyr•m•r ara oy ment of his properties that was also in accordance
Bhagwati 1.
with the provisions of the ConRtitution itself and
whatever may have been the guarantee or assurance
given to him under the terms of the said Agreement,
it could not be absolute but would only be co-extensive
with the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property
which is guaranteed to all the citizens of the Union
under Art. I!J(l)(f) of the Constitution .. These content:ons of the respondent therefore-are of no avail.
If, then, the provisions of the 1950 Act could be
validly applied to the merged State of Khandapara in
spite of art. 3 of the said .Agreement thus. attracting
the operation of the 1948 Act to his private lands it
remains to consider whether the respondent was a
landlord and the appellants were his tenants within
the meaning of the terms as defined in.that Act.
The contention of the respondent, in the first
instance, is that under the terms of s. 2(ii) of the Orissa
Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act, 1951 (Orissa
XVII of 1951) which added sub-s. 5 to s. 1 of the 1948.
Act, in such areas where neither the Madras .Eatates
Lands Act, 1908, nor the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913,
was in force-and the State of Khandapara was such
an area-the special laws or customs prevailing therein shall be taken into consideration for the application
of that Act. It is urged that the relationship between
the respondent and the tenants whom he had inr.l.ucted
on his private properties was governed by special laws
and customs and that therefore the application of the
Act was excluded. It is, however, to be observed that
no such contention was ever taken in the proceedings
before the Revenue Officer or before the High Court
and it was urged for the first time in the course of the
arguments befo_re us. The question is one of fact,
•
S.O.R.
SUPRl:£l\'IE courr REPORT:->
1077
toms .vere prevailing in the merged State of Khandapara, and
1961
we canno~ allow the respondent to urge this contention for Jagannath Belle"'
the first time before us.
We shall, therefore, proceed on the
anrl Other<
basis that the 1948 Act was quite properly extended to the
v._
merged State of Khandapara.
JJari~~;~SingJ,
ft is next contended that the definition of landlord and
tenant given in s. 2(c\ and <g> of the 1948 Act did not apply
to the relationship between the parties. The definitions of
these terms are as under:
Section 2(c)-"landlord"
means a person, whether ·a
proprietor. sub-proprietor, tenure-holder or raiyat or underraiyat, either in the raiyatwari area or in the zamindari area
or land-holder or permanent under-tenure-holder. whose land
a person. whether immediately, or mediately cultivates as a
tenant:
Section 2(g)-"tenant'' means a person who, under the
system generally known as Bhag, Sanja, Kata or such similar expression, cultivates the land of another person on condition of delivering to that person--
(i) either a share of the produce of such land, or
(ii) the estimated value of a portion of the crop raised
on the land, or
(iii) a fixed quantity of produce irrespective of the yield
from the land, or
<iv) produce or its estimated value partly in any one of
the ways described above and partly in another; but shall
not include ..................... "
It is urged that the tenants who were inducted by the
respondent on these lands did not fulfil the terms of this
definition and they were therefore not tenants and, as a logical corollary to that, the respondent could not be a landlord
qua them.
It is also contended that even though these
lands were declared to be the private properties of the Respondent under the decision of the Adviser for the Orissa
States, that was a recognition of the lands as such by the
Dominion Government and not by the Provincial Government; which recognition was a condition precedent of the
application of s. 7<h) of the 1950 Act to these lands. Herc
Jfordarai
/Jhromarbal'fl' Jf,,11
JJ/1'4fl~l'!flli ./.
1961
Jagannath Bekra
and Othera
v.
Raja
Jlarilzar Sin.oh
.~Cardaf'aj
!Jhmmarbaf'fl lto11
RUPHJD~rn COUHT
HJ~l'OHTl'.l
l1H51>]
also, the respondent is confronted with this difficulty that
these questions were not mooted either before the Revenue
Officer or the High Court in the manner in which it was
sought to be done before us. It was a 11 along assumed that
the appellants had been the tenants of the respondent but
had been ejected by him in the year 1951 and other tenants
were inducted in their place some time in 1952.
The land'
in question were also assumed to have been recognised as
the private lands of the respondent by the Government without making any distinction between the Dominion Government and the Provincial Government as was sought to be
done before us. Reliance was mainly placed by the respondent in the High Court on his plea that the jurisdiction of the
Revenue Officer was barred under Art. 363 of the Constitution and it was nowhere urged that the appellants were not
the tenants and he was not the landlord within the terms of
the definitions contained in the 1948 Act or that in the absence of recognition of these private lands of his as such by
the Provincial Government, the condition precedent to the
application of s. 7th) of the 1950 Act was not fulfilled and
that section has no application at all to these lands. The
determination of these questions also requires evidence in regard to the same and it would not be legitimate to allow
these questions to be agitated for the first time at this late
stage.
The matter is. however. concluded by the provisions of
s. 7(a) of the 1950 Act. That section enacts a statutory extension of the definition of the terms landlord and tenant and
provides that the expression 'landlord' shall mean a person
immediately under whom a tenant holds land, and the expression 'tenant' shall mean a person who holds land under
another person and is or, but for a special contract, would
be liable to pay rent for that land to that person. Whatever
may have been the definitions of the terms landlord and
tenant in s. 2(c) and fg) of the 1948 Act, this definition contained in the explanation to s. 7(a) of the 1950 Act makes
the appellants 'the tenants' and the respondents 'a landlord'
in regard to the lands in question. This statutory extension of
S.O.R.
SUPREME COURT R.J~POH.TS
1079
the definition of the terms 'landlord' and 'tenant' therefore
1957
is sufficient, in our opinion, to repel the last contention urged Jagannath Bchei-a
on behalf of the respondent before us.
and Others
. v.
The respondent further contends that in spite of s. 7 of
. lla.ia.
the 1950 Act. enacting that all suits and proceedings between
llarzhar
13'~"
landlord and tenant rs such shall be instituted and tried in B/,,!':!;.'t;~~ Roy
revenue courts, the provisions of the 1948 Act in regard to
the hierarchy of revenue courts and the procedure and the
lllwff'""'; .1.
penalties provided therein are not attracted: to the merged
State of Khandapara. The contention is that the provisions
contained in the 1950 Act are special provisions which eliminate the operation of the general provisions contained ill
the 1948 Act, and in so far as nothing more is stated in
regard to how the revenue courts' are to act in the matte'r of
the institution and trial of all suits and proceedings between
landlord and tenant, there is a lacuna and the revenue courts
as envisaged by the 1948 Act, have no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings in question.
The simple answer to this contention of the responltent
is that both these Acts have to be read together. The 1950
Act is an Act to extend certain Acts arid regulations to certain areas administered as part of the Province of Orissa.
The merged State of Khandapara is one of such areas. By
virtue of s. 4 of this Act the 1948 Act is inter alia extended
to the merged State of Khandapara and the provisions thereof are made applicable in that area. The other sections of
this Act enact further provisions which are applicable to
these merged States including the merged State of Khandapara ancf s. 7, in particular, enacts the modification of the
tenancy Jaws in force in those merged States. These provisions are therefore supplementary to those contained in the
1948 Act, and it follows that not only the provisions of the
1948 Act but also the provisions of the 1950 Act are applicable to the merged State of Khandapara. If both these Acts
are thus read together. as they should be, there is no inconsistency between the provisions of these Acts and it is clear
that the provisions of sub-s. (a) and (h) of s. 7 of the 1950
1!JfJ1
Jagannath B~litra
nnd Otliers
v.
Raja
Harihar Singh
Mardaraj
BAramarbaro Ro,
.1Ihtv,;umt1 J.
19.il
Doc•mlw J.j
1080
SUPRE.ME UOURT REPORTS
[1958]
Act which applied to the dispute which arose between the
appellants and the respondent read together with the relevant
provisions in regard to the procedure, penalties, etc., contained in the 1948 Act did give
jurisdiction to the Revenue
Officer to entertain the dispute between the parties. This
contention of the respondent also therefore fails.
We are therefore, of opinion that the judgment of the
High Court was clearly wrong and is liable to be set aside.
We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the order
made by the High Court, and restore the orders passed by
the Revenue Officer in the O.T.P. Act Cases Nos. 21 to 25 of
1952, 26 to 28 of 1952, 29 to 32 of 1952 and 33 to 41 to 1952.
The respondent will pay the appellants' costs of this appeal
as also of the writ petition in the High Court. The State of
Orissa will, of course. bear and pay its own costs.
Appeal allowed.
KHEMCHAND
v.
THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(S. R. DAS C. J., VENKATARAMA A.IYAR, S. K. DAS,
A K. SARKAR and VIVIAN BOSE JJ .)
Constitution, InterpTetation of-'Reasonable opportunity of
shoiving cause', Meaning of-Punishment of dismissai on Government Servant-Constitutional Protection-Procedure-Constitution of India, Art. 311(2).
'Reasonable opportunity to show
cause' in Art. 311(2) of
the Constitution contemplates not merely the opportunity to
do so at the enquiry stage but also when the competent authority, as a result of the enquiry, proposes to inflict one of the
three punishments mentioned in the Article on the delinquent
servant. Such reasonable opportunity must,
therefore, include,-
(1) opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence, which means that he must be told what the charges