RAJA SRIKARAN RADHANATH BEBARTA Vs. V RAMANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa, dated the 18th May, 1955, and for the issuance of an appropriate writ. The petitioner's case is that he is the Ruler of the ex -state of Athgarh, since merged with the State of Orissa, and the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 37 are the holders of his Khamar (home farm) lands which they cultivate on the basis of bhag. The opposite parties Nos. 3 to 37 filed an application under S. 7(h) of the Orissa Merged States' (Laws) Act, 1950 (Orissa Act IV of 1950), in respect of the Khamar lands of the petitioner for fixation of a fair and equitable rent. The Revenue Commissioner of Orissa first appointed the Collector of Cuttack to be the 'competent authority' under the Act for fixing such fair and equitable rent. The Collector of Cuttack by his order dated 21 -7 -52 fixed the fair and equitable rent at one -third of the gross annual produce in each case and directed the Sub -Divisional Officer of Athgarh to give effect to this order.

(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY , the order of the Collector dated 21 -7 -52, was set aside by the Member (Excise), Board of Revenue, Orissa, by his order dated 8 -2 -53, and the case was remanded to the Collector for fixing a fair and equitable rent after examining the matter afresh. Ultimately, the Sub -Divisional Officer, Athgarh by his order dated 16 -3 -54 fixed cash -rents on the basis of the rate of rent fixed for the occupancy tenants and adopted the same rental which was fixed by the settlement authorities under the then Durbar Government for the self -same lands. I may mention here that during the Durbar Government before merger, the lands in question were assessed to a rate of rent prevailing in respect of occupancy holding in the Ex -State area, but the Ruler being the landlord himself the payment of rent was held in abeyance.

(3.) THE opposite party No. 1, Member, (Excise) Board of Revenue, Orissa, by his affidavit contended that the Collector of Cuttack was the 'competent authority' appointed by the Revenue Commissioner, Orissa, in his order No. 585 R -XXIX -13/50 dated 4 -2 -50, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under paragraph 4 of the Government Order No. 3045(2) States, dated 9 -11 -49 read with the Government Notification No. 1492 -States, dated 25 -7 -49. The Member (Excise), Board of Revenue, Orissa, in partial modification of the aforesaid order dated 4 -2 -50 appointed the Sub -Division Officer of Athgarh as the 'competent authority' for the fixation of a fair and equitable rent. The Sub -Divisional Officer, Athgarh, thus after notice to the parties concerned, and after going through the settlement records in respect of the suit -lands and after hearing the parties, settled a fair and equitable rent. By virtue of the settlement operations carried on by the then Durbar Government of the ex -State of Athgarh, the disputed lands were duly assessed to rent, but the payment was suspended because the lands were the Khamar lands of the Ruler. The petitioner undoubtedly filed the revision cases against the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer, and the Board of Revenue dismissed the same, finding that the rent fixed is fair and equitable and is on the same level as that of the lands held by the neighbouring tenants of the same locality. By the aforesaid fixation of cash -rent, the Sub -Divisional Officer neither diminished the right of the petitioner in any way, nor violated the principles of Art. 362 of the Constitution; and much less the provisions of S. 7(h) of the Orissa Merged States' (Laws) Act. Rather, in pursuance of the assurance given to the Ruler by the agreement, the Union Government recognised the properties in dispute as the petitioner's private properties which doubtless were subject to the revenue laws of the land. Accordingly, the impugned order did not amount either to deprivation of any property, or to any reduction or diminution or restriction of the petitioner's right to hold the property, contrary to Arts. 31 and 19 of the Constitution. Thus, by the impugned order the petitioner has not been deprived of any property or of his right to hold the private lands but, on the contrary, he has derived the advantage of not paying anything to the State even when he realises a certain fixed rent from the tenants.