Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This is a petition under Article 133 of the Constitution for grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of this Court in O.J.C 295 of 1955. That O.J.C. was filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of an appropriate writ cancelling Notification No. 158 dated the 15th July, 1955, of the Govern-ment of Orissa issued under Section 3 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act vesting in the State Government village Golanda, No. 29 in Berhampur Taluk. The petitioners alleged that the said village was a Devadayam inam belonging to Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu under the merfatdari of the petitioners and that it was not an 'estate' within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act and consequently not an 'estate' within the meaning of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act also. (2) In the Orissa Estates Abolition Act as it stood in 1952, prior to its amendment by Orissa Act XVII of 1954, the expression 'estate' (see Section 2, (g)) included an inam estate, and it was further stated that all expressions in that Act have the same meanings as were given to those expressions in the Madras Estates Land Act or the Orissa Tenancy Act, as the case may be. In Section 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act the expression 'estate' was defined as meaning whole inam village of which the graut has been confirmed or recognised by the British Government even though subsequent to the grant the village might have been partitioned amongst the grantees. Hence an inam will be an 'estate' under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, prior to its amendment in 1954, if being a pre-settlement inam (1) it was either recognised or confirmed by the British Government; and (2) it was the grant of a whole village.

7. Mr. Das then contended that there was an important question regarding the interpretation of the Constitution arising out of the original application and that leave should be granted under Article 132. He urged that as admittedly the petitioners' inam was a Devadayam inam, that is to say, a village granted for the maintenance of the deity Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu and the petitioners' position was merely that of trustees, the acquisition of the village under the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act would interfere with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution. This point was taken in the previous application under Article 226, but was given up at the time of the hearing.