PROVINCE OF ORISSA Vs. DURJODHAN DAS GAONTIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are by the defts. against tbe judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Sambalpur reversing the judgment of the Munsif of Bargarh & decreeing the pltf's. suit for a declaration that they have the sole and exclusive right to appoint & dismiss a Nariha who id a village servant & that the revenue authorities have no right to interfere in any way with the exercise of that right by the pltfs.

(2.) Pltf. 1 is the Lambardar Gaontia of Mouza Guclesira which is a Gaontiahi village in Sambalpur district. Pltfs. 2 to 5 are the Punches of the said village who are elected by the raiyats for the purpose of assisting the Lambardar in the management of the village. In the last settlement deft, l was recorded as a Nariha in respect of 9'42 acres of land which were held by him rent, free (Ex. 2 a). In the wazib-ul-arz of the village (ex 2) it is recorded that the Nariha may be dismissed & deprived of his service lands by the Lambardar & the Punches for failure to render due service. The duties of a Nariha have not been dearly described in the wazib-ul-arz; but from the Settlement Reports of Dewar (l906) & Hamid (1926) it appears that a Naiiha is a village servant whose duties are those of a herdsman & water-carrier of the whole village. Sometime in 1930, the Lambardar & the Punches dismissed deft 1 from his poet as Nariha & appointed one Nitai Bhoi in his place. Then they applied to the S. D. O., Bargarb., under Schedule 8, C. P. Tenanoy Act for ejectment of deft. 1 from his holding & for putting the newly-appointed Nariha Kasiram Bagar in possession of the said holding. The S D. O. passed orders for ejecting deft. 1 & putting his successor in his place. (Ex. l). But on appeal the D. C of Sambalpur (Ex.. B-2) held that deft. 1 had been wrongfully dismissed by the Lambardar & the Punches & therefore,, set aside the eviction order of the 8. D. O. Against this order of the D. C. an appeal was preferred to the Comr. Mr. 0. L. Philip who by his order dated 11-7-82 (Ex. B-S) maintained the order of the D. C. & observed that the power of the Lambardar & the Punches to dismiss a Nariha waa not arbitrary but that it should be exercised reasonably & that before passing such an order there should be a dear finding as regards his specific neglect of duty & further the reasons for his dismissal should be formally recorded. Soon after the passing of this order by the Ct. the Lambardar & the Punches drew up proceedings & again dismissed deft. 1 on 31.10-32 This second order of dismissal was confirmed by the S. D. O, Bargarh but was set aside* by the J. G. Sambalpur. There was a further appeal to the Comr. Mr. E. S. Hoernle who by his order dated 16 9-33 (ex. B-4) maintained the order of the D. C. reinstating deft. 1. But at the same time he pointed out certain anomalies caused by the absence of clearly defined duties of the Nariha. & suggested that if the dispute should recur, a responsible officer should define not merely the theoretical but also the practical limits of his duties. On 15 2 34 the S. D. O, after visiting the village & persuading the parties to agree to settle their differences, passed an order enumerating the various duties to be performed by deft. 1 as Nariha. for the village community (Ex. i). The necessity for enumerating the various duties of a Nariha arose chiefly because there was a serious difference' of opinion between the Lambardar & the Punches on the one hand & deft. 1 on the other as to what were his 'due duties'. Against this order of the S. D. O. enumerating the duties of deft. 1 there' was an appeal to the D. C. who by his order dated 17-4-34 (Ex. 5) directed the S. D. O. to make furthat enquiries. The S. D. O. then held a further enquiry & passed orders on 23 6-34 (Ex. 6) clarifying the nature of the duties of the Nariha in certain respects. Against this order also there was an appeal to the Comr. who by his order dated 16-12-34 (Ex. B s) rejected the appeal as being not maintainable; but suggested to the D. C that some attempt should be made to settle the dispute by compromise. . Apparently subsequent attempts at compromise by the revenue authorities proved abortive & then the dispute between the parties was again taken to the Comr. who by his order dated 12-7-85 (Ex. 6) allowed deft. 1 to continue in the service holding as a Nariha. In this order also he made some observations regarding the anomalies arising out of the existence of these obsolete service holdings. It appears that he intended to visit the spot himself & settle the matter; but subsequently gave up the idea & the D. C. Sambalpur, by his order dated 30-6-37 (Ex. B-7) warned the Lambaidar Gaontia (pltf. l) from creating any trouble. The Gaontia again appealed to the Revenue Comr. Sir John Dain who by his order dated 18-8-38 (Ex. B-8) refused to interfere observing as follows :

(3.) I may at this stage further paint out that when the revenue authorities refused to evict deft. 1 from his holding or to put one Kasiram Bagar who who was appointed by the Lambardar & the Punches in his place, the sad Kasiram instituted a civil suit against deft. 1 in the Ct. of the Munsif of Bargarh But that suit was dismissed by the Munaif (ex. 0) on the ground that the civil Ct. had no jurisdiction to try the same.