ACHUTANANDA PUROHIT AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners are the intermediaries in respect of 3 Thikkadari villages in the district of Sambalpur. Those villages are Gargadbahal, Debijharan and Kansar. They are situated within the jurisdiction of the ex -State of Jujumura. These villages vested in the State of Orissa on 1 -4 -1960. The intermediaries are entitled to compensation. Under Section 26 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, (sic) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the gross asset of the estate is to be determined. One of the items of claim to be included in the gross asset was the gross income from the forests lying within the boundary of these three villages. The total forest land is about 2200 acres. The Compensation Officer held that the Petitioners were not entitled to any compensation in respect of forests. The Petitioners carried appeals to the Collector who dismissed the appeals on this bead. Second Appeals to the Member, Board of Revenue were also dismissed. Against the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, the Civil Revisions have been filed. The learned Member, Board of Revenue held that the Petitioners were not the proprietors of the 3 villages, that the proprietary interest vested in the ex -zamindar of Jujumura, and accordingly the Petitioners were not entitled to any compensation. He further examined some of the materials on record and came to the conclusion that no forest income was available from the entire 2200 acres of forest land for the year 1950 -60. Thus, on both the grounds he dismissed all the three second appeals.

(2.) MR . Misra for the Petitioners advanced two contentions -(1) The view of the learned Member, Board of Revenue that the Petitioners were not proprietors is contrary to law, and (2) his finding that the Petitioners are not entitled to any compensation in respect of forest land is also contrary to law, inasmuch as he did not take into consideration the most important pieces of evidence which would throw light on the question.

(3.) THE learned Member, Board of Revenue took the view that the Petitioners have no right in those villages on the basis of Section 124 -A of the 1881 Act. This section makes provision regarding exercise of powers by the Government relating to control and management of forests. The section throws no light that the thikkadars have no proprietary interest in the forest. The Deputy Commissioner is to exercise certain control. Even where the thikkadars or the proprietors disobey the injunction, they are not to be deprived of the property. They can be deprived of the possession of the forest for a temporary period during which it would he under the direct management of the Deputy Commissioner. Sub -section (5) makes it clear that the profits of such forest land while under direct management shall be paid to the proprietor, or to the superior and inferior proprietors in the proportions in which the costs of management are borne by them. Sub -section (6) also indicates that no leases, liens incumbrances or contracts created or made by the proprietor or by any person through or under whom he claims, of, upon or with respect to the forest land held under direct management, shall be binding upon the Deputy Commissioner during such management. In other words, those leases and contracts have their validity only during the period of management, and not beyond that.