CHINTAMONI PRATIHARI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NARASIMHAM , C. J This is a petition under Art. 133 of the Constitution for grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of this Court in O.J.C 295 of 1955. That O.J.C. was filed by the petitioners under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of an appropriate writ cancelling Notification No. 158, dated the 15th July, 1955, of the Government of Orissa issued under S. 3 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act vesting in the State Government village Golanda, No. 29 in Berhampur Taluk. The petitioners alleged that the said village was a Devadayam inam belonging to Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu under the merfatdari of the petitioners and that it was not an 'estate'

(2.) IN the Orissa Estates Abolition Act as it stood in 1952, prior to its amendment by Orissa Act XVII of 1954, the expression 'estate' (see S. 2 (g)) included an inam estate, and it was further stated that all expressions in that Act have the same meanings as were given to those expressions in the Madras Estates Land Act or the Orissa Tenancy Act, as the case may be. In S. 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act the expression 'estate' was denned as meaning whole inam village of which the grant has been confirmed or recognised by the British Government even though subsequent to the grant the village might have been partitioned amongst the grantees.Hence an inam will be an 'estate' under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, prior to its amendment in 1954, if being a pre -settlement inam (1) it was either recognised or confirmed by the British Government; and (2) it was the grant of a whole village.

(3.) MR . A. Das on behalf of the petitioners urged that in view of a Division Bench decision of this Court in Jagannath Agarwalla v. State of Orissa, S.C.A. Nos. 11 and 12 of 1956: ((S) AIR 1957 Orissa 42) (B), it is now settled (so far as this Court is concerned) that an application for the issue of an appropriate writ under Art. 226 in a case of the present type, would be in the nature of a 'Civil proceeding' and that consequently the order of this Court dated the 13th November, 1956 in O.J.C. 295 of 1955 dismissing the application "would be a 'final order' within the meaning of Art. 133 (1) of the Constitution. As the valuation is undoubtedly beyond Rs. 20.000/ - Mr. Das urged that the petitioners were entitled to the leave asked for.