S L NARASING RAO Vs. GOPALJEE MAHAPRABHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common challenge raised in both these writ applications is to the order passed by the appellate authority, the Addl. District Magistrate, Ganjam Chatrapur on 21-4-80 (Annexure-6) in O.E.A. Appeal Nos. 33/78, 35/78, 36/78 and 37/78. The cases are interlinked with each other both on facts as well as on questions of law. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) Though a large mass of facts have been stated in the pleadings and were reiterated by the learned counsel for the parties at the hearing of the case, a substantial part of it, in our view, is unnecessary for disposal of the cases. The facts relevant for the present purpose may be stated thus: The controversy raised in the writ applications relates to A.8.40 decimals of land under survey No. 369 of Bhapur covered by T.D. No. 2904 which stood recorded in the Revenue records in the name of the deity Sri Gopalji Mahaprabhu Bije at Babajitola, Bhapur. The said property was declared to be a part of trust estate. The intermediary interest of the deity in the said property vested in the State Govt. on 18-3-74 under the provisions of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act (for short `the Act'). The application filed by Balaram Panda, managing trustee of the deity on 17-4-74 for settlement of the land under Ss. 6 and 7 of the Act was registered as O.E.A. C.P. No. 103 of 1974 before the O.E.A. Act Collector, Berhampur. The writ petitioners S.V. Kameswar Rao (since dead and substituted by Smt. S.Kasulamma) and S.L. Narasingha Rao (since dead and substituted by S.Kameswar Rao, S.Narasingha Murty and S.Rajeswari) filed objections to the petition of the deity each claiming to be the tenant of the land in question. After certain initial misconception about the proceeding as clarified by this Court in O.J.C. No. 1053 of 1976 which was disposed of by the order dated 29-8-77 the matter was considered by the O.E.A. Act Collector, Berhampur treating the proceeding to be one under Sec. 7-A of the Act as appears from the order, and was disposed of by the order dated 24-8-78 filed as Annexure-7 to O.J.C. No. 1066 of 1980. The Collector in the said order rejected the claim petition of the deity as well as the stand taken by the objectors and declared that the land has vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances under S.3(a) of the Act and the deity represented by the managing trustee has ceased to have any interest in it. All the parties interested, that is, the two objectors, S.L. Narasingha Rao and S.V. Kameswar Rao, the applicant, the deity through its managing trustee Balaram Panda and Smt. Vaijayanti Patnaik, a purchaser of a portion of the land from the managing trustee challenged the order of the Collector by filing appeals, O. E. A. Appeal Nos. 33 of 1978, 35 of 1978, 36 of 1978 and 37 of 1978 which were disposed of by the Addl. District Magistrate. Ganjam by the impugned order passed on 21-4-80 annexed to the writ petition in O. J. C. No. 1066 of 1980 as Annexure-8. The appellate authority reversed the order of the Collector and remanded the case to him for fresh enquiry and disposal according to law. It is apparent from the order that the appellate authority has also considered the proceeding to be one under S.7-A of the Act. Prior to the date of vesting, that is, 18-3-74 there had been a series of litigations between the deity through its managing trustee and father of the objectors; after his death the objectors, is civil courts and Revenue Courts wherein it was being claimed that father of the objectors was usufructuary mortgagee of the disputed land from the Arehak of the deity; the stipulated period of the mortgage had expired; the deity had initiated legal proceeding for recovery of possession of the property; in the said proceeding a compromise had been entered into authorising the father of the objectors to remain in possession on payment of certain sum per annum. Subsequent there to a proceeding was initiated for recovery of certain outstanding amounts from the father of the objectors. The objector S.V.Kameswar Rao was claiming to be an occupancy tenant of the land having been inducted as such by his father and the other objector S.L.Narasingha Rao was also claiming to be a tenant of the land. In one of the proceedings in the Revenue Court a receiver was appointed in the year 1958 who took over possession of the property. Many of these proceedings after passing through several courts/ authorities including this Court are still pending for disposal. These statements of the facts were made by the parties in support of their respective claims of tenancy over the disputed land. They have been considered by the statutory tribunals that is, the O. E. A. Act Collector and the Addl. District Magistrate. As noticed earlier most of these factual statements are not very relevant for the present purpose inasmuch as there is no conclusive decision/decree in any of these proceedings as yet categorically declaring any one of the objectors to be the tenant of the disputed land or holding that the deity was in actual cultivating possession of it during the relevant period. For the present purpose analysis of the findings in the impugned order passed by the appellate authority in the light of the relevant statutory provisions will be sufficient for dispossal of the cases.

(3.) The appellate authority was considering four appeals filed by the claimant, the deity, the two objectors and the purchaser. Leaving out the case of the purchaser which needs no separate consideration since the fate of her case will depend on the result of the proceeding initiated on the application filed by the managing trustee of the deity, the rival claims which came up for consideration before the authority were the claims of the deity for settlement of the land and the objection thereto by the two objectors each claiming to be the tenant of the land. At this stage it will be convenient to quote the provision in S.7-A of the Act since the statutory tribunals have treated the proceeding to be one under the said section: