1994 (1) TMI 287 - SC - Indian Laws

Government not liable for compensation to illegal occupant under Orissa Estates Abolition Act.

The Supreme Court held that the Government was not obligated to acquire its own land or pay compensation to the respondent, who was deemed an illegal ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the appellants are bound to acquire the land in question.2. Whether the respondent had acquired any tenancy rights under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951.3. Whether the Board of Revenue was justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 38 B of the Act.4. Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the order of the Board of Revenue.Summary:Issue 1: Acquisition of Land by AppellantsThe Supreme Court held that the Government, being the owner of the land, need not acquire its own land. The principle established in 'Collector of Bombay v. Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistri' was followed, stating that the Government does not need to acquire an interest it already possesses. The High Court's direction to pay compensation to the respondent was deemed erroneous as the Government was not obliged to acquire its own land or pay compensation to a person in wrongful possession.Issue 2: Tenancy Rights under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951The respondent claimed tenancy rights based on a patta from Gokulanand Lambardar Gountia. However, the Supreme Court found that the Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to recognize the respondent as a tenant under Section 8(1) of the Act without prior confirmation from the Board of Revenue. The patta was deemed fabricated and not corroborated by any genuine records. The lease purportedly granted before 1-1-1946 was not validated by the Board of Revenue, thus the respondent did not acquire any tenancy rights.Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue under Section 38 BThe Supreme Court upheld the Board of Revenue's jurisdiction under Section 38 B of the Act, which allows the Board to examine the correctness, legality, or propriety of any decision or order made by subordinate authorities. The Board of Revenue found the Tehsildar's order to be without jurisdiction and non est in law. The exercise of revisional power by the Board was deemed legal and valid, despite the lapse of 27 years, as the patta's authenticity was questionable and the records were destroyed.Issue 4: High Court's Quashing of the Board of Revenue's OrderThe Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in quashing the Board of Revenue's order. The High Court's opinion that the exercise of power under Section 38 B was unwarranted was found to be incorrect. The Supreme Court restored the order of the Board of Revenue and set aside the High Court's direction to acquire the land and pay compensation to the respondent.Conclusion:The appeals were allowed, and the Supreme Court held that the Government need not acquire its own land or pay compensation to the respondent, who was deemed an illegal occupant. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.