MADHABA SABAR Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Plaintiff's appeal against the concurrent findings of the courts below dismissing his suit for a declaration that the order of the Board of Revenue dated June 10, 1952, is illegal and ultra vires and hence all the subsequent proceedings are without any legal validity. In the suit the Plaintiff also prayed for possession and for a decree for accounts from the date of his dispossession to the date of reinstatement by ejectment of Defendant 2 to 9.

(2.) THE Plaintiff's case was that one Arta Raiguru the ancestor of Defendants 2 to 9 acquired the suit village sometime in the year 1888 from the then Maharaja of Kalahandi by way of "Guru Dakhina" and the present Defendants 2 to 9 are the Maufidars of this village. Soon after the acquisition of the village, the then Maufidars permanently settled it with the grand -father of the Plaintiff, Bhagwan Sabar, as a Gountia or sub -proprietor. Bhagwan thereafter brought the lands of the village under cultivation by settling tenants. Thus, Bhagwan and after him his successors including the present Plaintiff had all along been in actual possession of the village. Although the settlement between the Maufidar and the Gountia was a permanent one, the State used to approve periodically of the arrangement made between them and the management of the village was carried on with certain duties to the state. During the settlement of 1922, the State granted a patta, Ext. 8, to the Plaintiff in whose favour the Plaintiff in his turn executed a Kabuliyat undertaking to abide by the condition of the lease. Under the terms of the lease, the Maufidars were to get annually from the year 1922 onwards a sum of Rs. 588.70 in cash and a Rasad paddy of 23 pastamas and 15 mans valued at Rs. 185.80 besides a sum of Rs. 96.19 as Nistar. The Plaintiff had been regularly paying the dues of the Maufidars. But for unavoidable reasons the paddy dues of two of the Maufidars, Narayan Raiguru and Damodar Raiguru, Defendants 2 and 8 could not be delivered for the years 1946 to 1950. Defendants 2 and 8 filed two suits against the Plaintiff in the years 1948 and 1950 and obtained decrees for the value of the paddy with interest thereon (vide Exts. 14/A and 15). The Plaintiff thereafter p id up the decretal amounts In full. On February 27, 1950 Defendants 2 to 9 presented an application before the Collector of Kalahandi making various allegations against the Plaintiff and praying for his eviction from the suit -village. The Collector rejected their prayer for eviction. On appeal, the Board of Revenue by its order dated 10.6.1952 (Ext. 17/a) held that the failure of the Plaintiff to deliver the rent to the Maufidars Was a good ground for his eviction by the Revenue Authorities and accordingly passed orders directing the ejectment of the Plaintiff from the suit village. The Board had also directed by that order that the management of the village would revert to the Maufidars, Defendants 2 to 9. The Plaintiff thereafter filed an application for review and that application was rejected in August, 1952 (Ext. J.). Accordingly In pursuance of the order of the Board of Revenue, the Collector of Kalahandi put Defendants 2 to 9 in possession in August 1952 and the Plaintiff after having been so ejected from the suit -village, commenced the present suit.

(3.) THE defence of the Defendants inter alia was that Arta Raiguru, the ancestor of Defendants 2 to 9, was the Maufidar -Gounth of the suit -village and not a simple Maufidar and that the Plaintiff and his ancestors were mere Sikimdars or Sikimi Gountias without any permanent right whatsoever. The Maofidar -Gountias were entitled to certain quantity of paddy In kind and not to a sum of Rs. 185.80 in cash as alleged in the plaint and that according to the terms of the lease, the Plaintiff was liable to be ejected for non -payment of the land revenue. The Plaintiff thus being a habitual defaulter proceedings against him for eviction were properly taken and that the order of the Board of Revenue was not therefore illegal or ultra vires. It was further averred that the suit as framed is not maintainable and that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the Revenue Court has the exclusive jurisdiction and the order of the Board of Revenue is final and is not liable to be challenged in the civil court.