JAGANNATH BEHERA AND OTHERS versus RAJA HARIHAR SINGH MARDARAJ BHRAMARBARA ROY

JAGANNATH BEHERA AND OTHERS versus RAJA HARIHAR SINGH MARDARAJ BHRAMARBARA ROY

The extension of tenancy protection law to merged states does not contravene guarantee of full ownership, use or enjoyment under merger agreement; jurisdiction of courts is not barred by Article 363 as the dispute is between ruler and tenants, not arising out of merger agreement. Respondent is a landlord for purposes of tenancy protection law; Revenue Officer had jurisdiction. High Court order setting aside Revenue Officer's proceedings was wrong and is to be reversed.

Parties
Appellants: Jagannath Behera and Others; Respondent: Raja Harihar Singh Mardaraj Bhramarbara Roy; Intervener: State of Orissa
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 December 1957
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of the Orissa High Court Dated October 7, 1953, in O.j.c. No. 37 of 1952
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Merger Agreement, Private Property of Ruler, Tenancy Protection, Jurisdiction, Landlord and Tenant Definitions, Application of Statutes to Merged States
Constitutional Law Property Law Administrative Law Merger Agreement Private Property of Ruler Tenancy Protection Jurisdiction Landlord and Tenant Definitions +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jagannath Behera and Others

Appellants

Raja Harihar Singh Mardaraj Bhramarbara Roy

Respondent

State of Orissa

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of the Orissa High Court Dated October 7, 1953, in O.j.c. No. 37 of 1952

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of tenancy protection law violates guarantee of full ownership, use and enjoyment of ruler's private property under merger agreement
  2. 2 Whether courts' jurisdiction is ousted by Article 363 of Constitution in disputes involving merger agreements
  3. 3 Whether respondent is landlord under applicable statutes

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of tenancy protection law to merged states does not contravene guarantee of full ownership, use or enjoyment under merger agreement; jurisdiction of courts is not barred by Article 363 as the dispute is between ruler and tenants, not arising out of merger agreement. Respondent is a landlord for purposes of tenancy protection law; Revenue Officer had jurisdiction. High Court order setting aside Revenue Officer's proceedings was wrong and is to be reversed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • High Court order set aside
  • Orders of Revenue Officer in O.T.P. Act Cases Nos. 21 to 25 of 1952, 26 to 28 of 1952, 29 to 32 of 1952, and 33 to 41 of 1952 restored