Singh Deo Vs. Niladri Sahu & Ors  INSC 190 (6 May 1999)
S.N.Phukan S.N. PHUKAN,J.
appeal is directed against the judgment of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C.
No.602 of 1978. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court after
interpreting Section 4(1)(h) of Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (for short the
Act) did not agree with the findings of the Board of Revenue that under the
above section possession of land by the person on date of vesting is necessary
for the purpose of declaration as a Raiyat.
stated facts are as follow: Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed an application for
declaration as Raiyats under Section 4(1)(h) of the Act for Survey Plot Nos.
719, 915, 804, 805, 297, 266 and 957 in village Padampur where respondents
reside. This village was part of the estate of Badagada and the estate was
abolished by Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951(for short the Act of 1951) and
the land vested in the Government free from all incumbrances w.e.f. 01.06.1953.
In the above application for being declared as Raiyats, the appellant before us
filed objection on the ground that the land in question belonged to the Deity
of Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu of which the appellant was a trustee. The Revenue
Officer held that the respondents herein failed to prove possession of the land
and the appellant also did not take any step for declaration that it was a
trust estate and, therefore, rejected both the applications . In appeal filed
by the appellant it was held that the appellant should have put forth his claim
of heriditory trustee before the Orissa Estate Abolition Collector appointed
under Act of 1951. Therefore, the plea of the appellant was not accepted.
Regarding Respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 it was held that they failed to prove their
possession and, therefore, could not be declared as Raiyats.
finding was also accepted by the Revisional Authority.
reference was made to the Board of Revenue by the Revisional Authority and the
Board also agreed with the findings of the Revenue Authorities regarding
personal cultivation of the land by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and, therefore,
reference was rejected. The Tribunal constituted under Act of 1951 declared the
Deity Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu as religious trust of public nature on an
application filed by the appellant. The order of Board of Revenue was
challenged before the High Court by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the High
Court by the impugned order held, inter alia, as follows: (1) under Section 4(1)(h)
of the Act for giving status of Raiyat requirement that the person would be
holding the land on the date of vesting of the land on the government was not
envisaged under the above sub-section and, therefore, finding of the Board of
Revenue was contrary to law. (2) according to the High Court the requirements
for a declaration that the person is a Raiyat are (i) the land is in a vested
estate (ii) such land is held by the person under the Government and(iii) (a)
the person holding land is a temporary lessee in personal cultivation of the
land for agricultural purposes, or (b) holds in mediately or immediately under
such temporary lessee or (c) is a successor in interest of any such persons.
Regarding factual aspects, the High Court confirmed the declaration of the
Revenue Officer that the respondents are Raiyats in respect of land covered by
Survey No. 719; the claim of the respondents for declaration of Raiyats in
respect of Survey No. 957, 804 and 805 was rejected and the Board of Revenue
was directed to consider the matter afresh in light of the judgment in respect
of Survey No. 915, 266 and 297. We have heard Mr. Janaranjan Das, learned
counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the
respondent. We extract below the relevant provisions of the Act namely Clause(h)
of Sub-section(1) and Sub-sections (2),(3) and (4) of Section 4:
The following persons shall be deemed to be raiyats for the purpose of this Act
in respect of the lands held by them, namely: (a)........... (b)...........
- subject to the provisions of Sub-sections (2),(3) and (4) persons who are
temporary lessees in personal cultivation of lands in the vested estates held
under Government for agricultural purposes, persons who are in personal
cultivation of such lands held either mediately or immediately under such
temporary lessees and the successor- in-interest of any such persons:
that nothing in this clause shall apply to char or diara lands or lands held
under the custom of Utabandi or similar other customs;
The Revenue Officer, on an application in that behalf in the prescribed form
and manner by a person referred to in Clause (h) of Sub-section(1) made not
later than ninety days from the commencement of this Act or within such further
period not exceeding thirty days as such officer in his discretion allows, may
after such enquiry as may be necessary by order declare that such person shall
be a raiyat holding immediately under Government in respect of the land held as
specified in the said clause with effect from the begining of the year next
following the date of the order:
that any such person as aforesaid,who has failed to make an application within
the said period, may make such application within ninety days from the date of
commencement of the Orissa Land Reforms (Ammendment) Act, 1966(Act 8 of 1967;
further that any such person as aforesaid who has failed to make an application
within any of the periods specified in this sub-section may make such
application within a period of two years from the commencement of the Orissa
Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1973(President's Act 17 of 1973:
further that any such application made after the expiry of the period specified
in this sub-section and before the aforesaid date shall, for all purposes, be
treated as an application filed within the period of limitation;
further that an application under this sub- section may, if it relates to any
land situate in an estate vested in the Government after the 30th day of
September, 1965, be filed within two years from the date of commencement of the
Orissa Land Reforms (Second Amendment) Act, 1975 or the date of vesting of the
estate, whichever is later.(emphasis supplied) (3) - While making an order
under Sub-section (2) the Revenue Officer shall determine the permium in
respect of the raiyati right to be so acquired to be paid to Government which
shall be an amount calculated at the rate of eight hundred rupees per standard
acre of the land.
The permium determined under Sub-section (3) shall be payable in five equal
annual instalments on such dates as may be fixed by the Revenue Officer and the
amount of premium or any portion thereof remaining unpaid shall be recoverable
as arrears of land revenue." We agree with the High Court that to acquire
the status of Raiyat under Clause(h) of sub-section(1) of Section 4 of the Act,
the land has to be a vested estate and such land is held by the person under
the Government and (a) the person holding the land is a temporary lessee doing
personal cultivation on the land for agricultural purposes or (b) holds it mediately
or immediately under temporary lessee or (c) is successor-in-interest of any
however, do not agree with the High Court that possession of the land is not a
condition for acquiring such Raiyati right for the reasons stated hereinafter.
By the Act of 1951, right, title and interest of all intermediaries over land
were abolished and such rights in respect of the land vested in the Government
free from all incumbrances.
land after vesting is called vested land. There is no dispute in the case in
hand that the land in question is a vested land.
the enactment of the Act of 1951 legislature enacted the present Act and from
the preamble of the Act we find that it was so enacted as a progressive piece
of legislation relating to agrarian reforms of land in order to confer better
rights on agriculturists. In other words after abolition of rights of
intermediaries, steps had to be taken by the enacting the Act to give rights on
land to the tillers of the soil. The expression "personal
cultivation" has been defined in Clause(22) of Section 2 of the Act. The
said Clause is extracted below:
"personal cultivation" with its grammatical variations and cognate
expressions means to cultivate on one's own account- (a) by one's own labour;
or (b) by the labour of any member of one's family; or (c) by servants or hired
labour on wages, payable in cash or kind, but not in crop-share, under one's
personal supervision or the person supersion of any member of one's family;
'Family' in relation to an individual, means the individual, the husband or
wife, as the case may be, of such individual and their children, whether minor
or major;" Therefore, unless a person is in actual physical possession of
land the question of personal cultivation could not arise and, therefore, he
cannot claim Raiyati right. We are, therefore, of the opinion that possession
is a must for the purpose of considering whether a person has acquired the status
of Raiyat under Clause (h) of sub- section(1) of Section 4 of the Act.
Regarding the date of possession we have to consider sub-section(2) of Section
4 of the Act. Under sub-section (2) a person can make an application for
declaration of Raiyati right under Clause(h) of sub-section(1) of Section 4.
The period within which such application is to be made is fixed by sub-section
(2) and, it is clear from the said sub- section that the period is to be
counted, under main sub- section, from the date of commencement of the Act.
Under the first proviso it would be from the date of commencement of Orissa
Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1966, under the second proviso from the date of
commencement of Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1973 and under the 4th proviso from the
date of commencement of Orissa Land Reforms(Second Amendment) Act, 1975 or on
the date of vesting of the estate in the Government, whichever is later.
a person is in possession of the vested land he cannot make an application as
would appear from sub- section(2) of Section 4. Therefore, date of possession
would depend on nature of the claim put up by a person for his Raiyati right
and this date is to be decided by the revenue authority in terms of the above
sub-section(2). For the reasons stated above the appeal is partly allowed and
the impugned judgment is modified to the extent that the revenue authority, as
directed by the High Court shall also consider the question of possession as
indicated above along with the claim of the appellant. Parties shall bear their