# KUM<\R BIMAL CHANDRA SINHA v. STATE OF ORISSA - **Citation:** [1963] 2 S.C.R. 552 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1963 - **Bench:** R. P. Sinha, K. Subba Rao, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, J. R. MuDHOLKAR, T. L. Vetkatarama. Aiyar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/kum-r-bimal-chandra-sinha-v-state-of-orissa-2518 - **Pages:** 12 ## Headnote E•tat.•, Abolition of-Raiyati right purchi ,·. 2 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 555 raiyats in respect of the holdings purchased by them have been recorded. On the lands of the occupancy holdings, there were several buildings which were used as Katcheri houses by the proprietors, for the administration of their estate. In January 1954, according to the petitioners in the High Court, the State Officials took illegal possession of those buildings situate on the raiyati land, as aforesaid. The appellants· thereupon made an application to the Collector of Puri for vacant possession of the lands and the buildings, described in the petition, on the allegation that those lands tQgether with the buildings, purcha.sed from tenants with rights of occupancy, were, after purchase by the proprie· tors, used a.s Katcheri house· by them. They also alleged that those properties had not vested in the State of Ori88a as a result of the said notification, unde1· the Act. ·. Part of the said house had been let out to the Postal Department. The Anchal Adhikari of that area wrote to the Postmaster, and Superintendent of Post Offices, not to pay rent to the proprietors. The Postal Department, therefore, vacated that portion of the building in their occupation, which has gone into the occ:upation of the State Government. Another portion of the property, which was used as dhango/,a was let out for storing paddy, to a third party. That dhango/,a wa.s also taken illegal possession of by the Naib Tehsildar of the place. Other portions of . the property also are in illegal possession of the State Govern· ment, through its Ancha.l Adhikari. It wa.s thus claimed on behalf of the proprietors that tlie State Government had no right to take possession of the property, a.s it did not form part of the estate which had been acquired under the Act, and had, on -notification, vested in the State Government. The lea.med Collector of Puri did not .. concede the demand of the proprietors, and held that the occ'u· pancy holding is situated within the tenure held 196Z Kamar.-Bifnal Chandra Sinha v. Slate nj OrissaJ Sinha C.J. "" X'•oBhal CA.W• Siol>o .. S'°'4 of°"''' -- So.A.C. J. 556 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS (1003} under the proprietors a.nd la.y within the geogra.phioal limits of the estate which hl\d vested in the Government. Being aggrieved by the . a.fforeea.id order of the Collector, dated November 20, 1956, the proprietors moved the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for relief age.inst w ha.t wa.s alleged to be illegal interference with their interest not a.s proprietors but a.a occupancy tenants. The High Court dismissed the proprietors' ola.im chiefly on the ground that the question raised by the petition before the High Court wa.s "pra.otica.lly oonoluded by the observations of the Supreme Court in the oase of K. C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. The Stat,e of Oriaaa (' ). It is manifest that the controversy raised in this oa.se ha.s to be answered with reference to the provisions of the Aot. •Estate' ha.s been defined in ol. (g) of s. 2 of the Aot a.s follows : " 'estate' includes a. pa.rt of an ear.ate a.nd means any land held by or vested in a.n Intermediary a.nd included under one entry in any revenue roll or a.ny of the genera.I registers of revenue-paying lands a.nd revenue-free lands, prepared and ma.inta.ined under the la.w relating to land revenue for the time being in foroo or under any rule, order, custom or usage having the force of la.w, a.nd includes revenue-free lands not entered in a.ny register or revenue-roll and all cla.sses of tenures or under-tenures a.nd any jagir, ina.m or muafi or other similar grant"; Explanation !.-Land Revenue means all sums and payments in money or in kind, by whatever name designated or locally known, received or olaima.ble by or on beha!C of the State from an Intermediary on account of or (I) (1115f) S. C. Jl, J, . ··- 2 S.C.R. SUPREME OOURT REPORTS 557 in relation·to a.ny land held by or vested in such intermediary; · Explanation IL-Revenue-free land in· eludes land which is, or but for any special covenant, agreement, engagement or contract would have been, liable to settlement and assessment of land revenue or with respect to which the State has power to make laws for settlement and assessment of land revenue; Explanation 111.-In relation to merged territories 'estate' as defined in this clause shall also include any maha.l or village or collection of more than one such ma.ha! or villa11e held by or vested in a.n Intermedia?y which has been or is liable to be assessed as one unit to land revenue whether such land revenue be payable or has been released or oom:r,ounded for or redeemed in whole or in part'. The definition makes reference to an 'Intermediary', which has been defined in cl.(h) as follows : 'Intermediary' with reference to any estate means a proprietor, sub-proprietor, landlord, landholder, malguzar, tliika.dar, ga.ontia, tenure·holder, undertenure-holder, and includes an inamdar, a ja.girdar, Zamin· da.r. Ilaquadar, Khorgoshdar, Parganadar, Sarba.raka.r and Maufidar including t.he Ruler of an Indian State merged with the State of Ori8S& and all other holders or ·owners of interest in land between the raiyat ·and the 8tate; Explanation L--Any two or more Intermediaries holding a joint interest in an estate which is home either on the revenue-roll or on the rent-roll of another Intermediary shall be deemed to be one Intermedia.ry for the purposes of this Act; 1•61 Jru...,Bimdl Clrondra Sinha •• Slate oJ Oris•o SlnbC.J. 1962 Kumar Bimal Clrondro S1nh2 v. Slot. of Oris~ 1 Sinh~ O. J. 558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963] Explanation II.-The heirs and successors-in-interest of an Intermediary and where an Intermediary is a minor or of unsound mind or and idiot, his ~uardian, committee or other legs) curator shall be deemed to be an Intermediary for the purposes of this Act. All acts done by an Intermediary under this Act shall be deemed to have been done by his heirs and successors-in-interest and shall be binding on them. Reading the two definitions together, the position in law is that 'estate' includes the interest, by whatever name called, of all personB, who hold some right in land between the State at the apex and the raiyat at the base. That is to say, the Act is intended to abolish all Intermediaries and rentreceivers and to establish direct relationship between the State, in which all such interests vest, after abolition under the Act, and the tillers of the soil. The interest of a raiyat is designated by the word 'holding' and is defined by the Orissa Tenancy Act ( Bihar and Orissa Act II of 1913), as follows: " 'holding' means a parcel or parcels of land held by a raiyat and forming the subject of 8 separate tenancy" - Under the Orissa Tenancy Act, the unit of interest of a proprietor is an 'estate'. Under a proprietor may be a number of sub-proprietors. •Sub-proprietor' is also defined in the Tenancy Act, but we are not concerned in. this case with that class of holders of land. The interest of a. tenure-holder or a.n undor-tenureholder is characterised as a •te~ure'. Thus, the proceBB-of infeudation and sub-infeudation, which has been similar in all plaoes·where the Permanent Settlement took place, that is to say, in Bengal, Bihar and Orl88a and Madras and Andhra Pradesh, .f · . " 2 S.C.R. · SUPREME COURT REPORTS 559 has led to the coming into existence of proprietors, with their estates, sub-proprietors under th!)m, tenure-holders and under-tenure-holders and ultimately the tiller of the E10il, the raiyat, whose 'unit of interest is a •holding'. The Act was intended to abolish all proprietors, sub: proprietors, tenureholders and under-tenure-holders, with a varietv of names; but did not touch the interest of the raiyat. The same person, by transfer or by operation of law, might at the same timei occupy different status in relation to land. He ,may be .in respect of a particular area, which is geographically included in the estate, the proprietor. That land may be held by a raiyat not directly under a proprietor but under a tenure-holder, who holds directly under proprietor. The proprietor may have acquired the interest of a raiyat. Thus the proprietor, in his capacity as the owner of the estate holds thE;l entire estate, and he may have by purchase acquired the interest of a raiyat, paying rent for the raiyati interest to his im 'Ilediate landlord, the tenure-holder. The· tenure-holder, in his turn, may have been liable to pay rent to the proprietor. That is what appears to have happened in this case. The appel· !ants held the Paikpara estate as proprietors. They also appear to have purchased· the properties in question com prising raiyati lands with certain buildings. thereon from the raiyat. Hence, the position in law is that though these lands with the buildings are situate geographically within the ambit of the appellants' estate, they aro not part of the estate. In other words, the appellants hold those properties with the buildings not as proprietors as such, but as raiyat.s. It appears that the Courts below have not, kept clearly in view this distinction. The Collector, in the first instance, and the High Court in the proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution, appear t<;> have fallen into the error of confusing the petitioners' position as ex-proprie· tors, with their present position as raiyats in 1962 lCumar Bimal Cliaru/, _, Sinha •• Stall of Orisaa Sinha a. J . . .l"••IHmal CA.dro ~ itsh• v. s1.u If o,usa SinAa C. J. 560 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1963) respect of the land on which th., buildings stand. The High Court has drawn the conclusion from the "' decision of this Court in K. G. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. The 8"1te of Orissa, ( 1) and has observed that whether the buildings in question vtisted in the Government, on the vesting of the esta.te under s. 3 of the Act, would depend not upon whether it formed part of the estate acquired by the Government but on the purpose for which the buildings wore Wied by the proprietors. As the buildings in question had been primarily used as office or Katcheri for the collection of rent or for the use of servants or for storing grains by way of rent in kind, tlte buildings will vest in the Government on the vesting of the eata.te itself. In our opinion, this conclusion drawn by the High Court from the decision of this Court is not well-founded in law. The High Court. draw its conclusions from the following observations of this Court in the aforesaid C8llC at Pages 25-26: . -. "A88uming tb&t in India there is no absolute rule of law that whatever is affixed ' to or built on the soil becomes a. pa.rt of it and is subject to the Be.me rights of property as the soil itself, there i5 nothing in law which prevent.a-the ~tate legislature from providing as a. part of the estates abolition scheme that buildings, lyin~ within the ambit of a.n estate and used primarily for management or administration of the estate, would vest in ... the Government as appurtenances to the estate itself. This is merely ancillary to' the acquisition of a.n estate and forms an integral part of the abolition scheme. Such acquisition would come within article 31 (ii) of the Constitution and if the conditions laid down in clause ( 4) of the article are complied with, it would certainly attract the protection • • afforded by that clawie. Compellll&tion b,aa, Cll \1"41 s.c.a. 11. 2 s.o.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 561 been provided for these buildings in s. 26(2)( iii) of the Act and the annual rent of• these buildings determined in the prescribed manner constitutes one of the elements for computation of the gross asset of an estate." The observations quoted above of this Court have reference to the following definition of •homestei!d' in cl. ( i) of s. 2 of the Act: "homestead' means a dwelling house used by the Intermediary for the purpose ()f his own residence or for the purpose of letting out on rent together with any courtyard,-eompound, garden, orchard and out· buildings attached thereto and included any tank, library and place of worship appertaining to such dwelling house but does not include any building comprised in such estate and used primarily as office or kutchery for the administration of the estate on and from the 1st day of January, 1946" It will appear from this definition that the Legislature placed a proprietor's •homestead' in two categories, namely (1) a dwelling house used by the Intermediary for his own purposes, and (2) any building compri3ed in auch estate and used primarily as office or Katcheri for·the administration of the estate on and from the lst day of January, 1946. In respect of first category the AQt provides in s. 6 that that portion of the homestead shall be deemed to be settled by the State with the Int3rmedjary, who will continue to hold it as a tenaat under the State Government, subject to the payment of fair · and equitable groundrent, except where under the existing law no rent is payable in respect of homestead lands. · It will be noticed further that the second category in the definition of homestead, whioh has not been permitted to t,he outgoing 1962 Kumtw Bimol Cll1mdr11 j;tlha v. 9, .. ,, of0"1$~ -- Sinha C. J. 1961 KMmor Bimal C"andr• SiUa. •• St°'6 of Ori•sc Sinna C. J. 562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1!!63] Intermediary has reference to "any building cnm· prise11 in such estate". It has no reference to any ,' building standing on rayati holding or a portion thereof. This becomes further clear with reference to the provisions of s. 5, which lays down the consequences of vesting of an estate in the State. Under cl (a) of e. 5, the entire estate, including all kinds of lands described in meticulous details, and other non-raiyati lands vest absolutely in the State Go,·ernment. This Qourt, while dealing with th11 constitutionality of the Act, was not concerned with ' -. raiyati lands. Its observations bad reference only to such buildings as stood upon the proprietor's private lands like peel, Beer, Zirat, etc., which were in his possession as proprietor or as tenure-bolder. It is thus clear that the very ha.sis of the judgment of the High Court is entirely la.eking. '!'hat the High Court was not unaware of this di•tinction becomes clear from the following pasHage in its judgment: "Doubtless, Ryoti lands are excluded from the scope of this clause. But buildings and structures standing on Ryoti lsnd~ and in the poBBession of the proprietor are not expressly saved," The first sentence quoted above is correct, but not the second. 'l bore is no question of expresely saving structures on ratyati lands, when it is absolntcly clear that raiyali _lands a.re not the subject-matter of legislation by the Act. The same remarks apply to the reference in section. 26 ( h) (iii). Section !::6 begins with the words "for the purpose of this chapter", namely, Chapter V, beaded "Assessment of Compensation". Reading s. 26 as a whole it is absolutely clear that for the purpose of assesement of the compensation payable to the outgoing proprietor or tenure-holder, of the estate to be acquired, gross usets have to he determined, by aggreizating the rents payable by '· -,.- .. .. 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 563 tenure-holders or under-tenure-holders and raiyats. It is, thus, clear that the. rent payable by the appollants as· raiyats in respect of the disputed lands would form part of the assets which have to be included rn the gross assets in determining compensatio·n. But that does not mean .that the interests ·of raiynts also have become vested in the State as a result of the notification under s. 3, read with s. 5. For the reasons aforesaid, it must be held that the appellant's raiyati interests in the lands and in the buildings standing on those lands have not been affected by the abolition of his interest as proprietors, and .that the State authorities had illegally taken possession of those. The ~.ppeal is accordingly allowed with oosts here and below. A ppe.al allOwf.d . COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA v. EAST INDIA COMMERCIAL CO. LTD. (B. P. SINHA, c. J ' P. B. QAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANOHOO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, and T. L. VANKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.) . Bea CWJtoms-Effect of confirmation of order. in appealOrder of Collector merged into that of Central Board of Revenue -Sea CWJtoms Act, 1878 (8 of 1878). · J.. The respondent imported 2,000 drums of mineral oil and the appellant confiscated ·50 drums and imposed a personal penalty. The appeal of the respondent was dismissed by the Central Board of Revenue. The respondent filed .a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the Culcutta High Court. .A Full Bench of the High Court held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to issue a writ against the Central Board of Revenue in view of the decision in the case ._ " of Baka Venkata Bubba Rao. However, as the Central Board of Revenue had merely dismisssd the appeal ~gainst the 1961 Kumsr Bimal CkaMtc-SJnha· v. Stole of Punjab -- Sinha C. J.