{"id":254189,"date":"1962-04-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1962-04-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-bimal-chandra-sinha-vs-state-of-orissa-on-30-april-1962"},"modified":"2016-03-29T07:58:29","modified_gmt":"2016-03-29T02:28:29","slug":"kumar-bimal-chandra-sinha-vs-state-of-orissa-on-30-april-1962","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-bimal-chandra-sinha-vs-state-of-orissa-on-30-april-1962","title":{"rendered":"Kumar Bimal Chandra Sinha vs State Of Orissa on 30 April, 1962"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kumar Bimal Chandra Sinha vs State Of Orissa on 30 April, 1962<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 1912, 1963 SCR (2) 552<\/div>\n
Author: B P Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Subbarao, K., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Mudholkar, J.R., Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKUMAR BIMAL CHANDRA SINHA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF ORISSA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n30\/04\/1962\n\nBENCH:\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nBENCH:\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nSUBBARAO, K.\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\nAIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA\n\nCITATION:\n 1962 AIR 1912\t\t  1963 SCR  (2) 552\n\n\nACT:\nEstates, Abolition of-Raiyati right purchased by proprietor-\nBuilding on occupancy holding, used as Katchteri-Notifcation\nVesting\t estate\t in  the  State-Effect-Whether\tbuilding  on\noccupancy   holding  vests  in\tthe   State-Orissa   Estates\nAbolition  Act, 1951 (Orissa 1 of 1952), ss. 2(g), (h)\t(i),\n3, 5, 26.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellants\t held the Paikpara  estate  as\tproprietors.\nThey  had  purchased the properties in\tquestion  comprising\nraiyati\t lands\twith  certain  buildings  thereon  from\t the\nraiyat.\t Thus the proprietors became occupancy raiyat8 under\nthe  tenure  holders  or sub-proprietors.  By  virtue  of  a\nnotification  issued  under  s.\t 3  of\tthe  Orissa  Estates\nAbolition Act, 1951, the Paikpara estate vested in the State\nof  Orissa.   But the interest of tenure  holders  and\tsub-\nproprietors within the estate had not been taken over  under\nthe provisions of the Act:\n\t\t   553\nThe  said buildings on the lands of the\t occupancy  holdings\nwere  used  as Katcheri houses by the  proprietors  for\t the\nadministration\tof their estates.  The state officials\ttook\npossession of these buildings situated on the raiyati  land.\nThe  appellants made an application to the collector,  Puri,\nfor  vacant possession of the lands and the buildings.\t The\nCollector  did\tnot  concede the demand and  held  that\t the\noccupancy holding was situated within the tenure held  under\nthe  proprietors and lay within the geographical  limits  of\nthe  estate  which had vested in the Government.   The\tHigh\nCourt  dismissed  the writ petition of the  appellant  under\nArt.  226<\/a>  on  the  ground  that  the  question\t raised\t was\npractically concluded by the Supreme Court in K. C. Gajapati\nNarayan v. Deo State of Orissa<\/a>.\nThe appellants came up in appeal on a certificate granted by\nthe High Court.\nHeld,  that the appellants' raiyati interests in  the  lands\nand  in the buildings standing on those lands had  not\tbeen\naffected by the abolition of their interests as proprietors,\nand the State Authorities had illegally taken possession  of\nthem.\nHeld,  further, that the Orissa Estates abolition  Act,1951,\nwas  intended  to abolish  all\tproprietors,sub-proprietors,\ntenureholders,\twith a variety of names, but did  not  touch\nthe  interest of the raiyat.  Hence though these lands\twith\nbuildings was situate geographicaiy within the ambit of\t the\nappellant's  estate, they were not part of the estate.\t The\nappellant  held those properties with the buildings  not  as\nproprietors as such, but as raiyats.\nHeld, also, that the conclusion drawn by the High Court from\nthe  decision in K. C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. The State  of\nOrissa<\/a>\tis not well founded.  The observation of this  Court\non  which  it  drew  its conclusion  had  reference  to\t the\ndefinition  of 'home-stead' in cl. (1) of s. 2 of  the\tAct.\nThis  court while dealing with the constitutionality of\t the\nAct,  in  the  above case, was not  concerned  with  raiyati\nlands.\t  Its  observations  had  reference  only  to\tsuch\nbuildings as stood upon the proprietor's private land, which\nwere in his possession as proprietor or as tenure-holder.\nK.   C.\t Gajapati Narayan Deo v. The State of  Orissa<\/a>,[1954]\nS.   C. R. 1, not applicable.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 177 of 1960.\n<\/p>\n
554<\/span><\/p>\n
Appeal from the Judgment and order dated March 27, 1958,  of
\nthe Orissa, High Court in O. J.C.  No. 191 of 1956.
\nHemendra Chandra Sen and S. Ghose, for the appellants.
\nN.   S.\t Bindra,  V.  N.  Sethi and P.\tD.  Xenon,  for\t the
\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n
1962.  April 30.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nSINHA,\tC. J.-This appeal on  a certificate granted  by\t the
\nHigh   Court   of  Orissa  raises  the\t question   of\t the
\ninterpretation\tof certain provisions of The Orissa  Estates
\nAbolition Act, 1951 (Orissa Act 1 of 1952) which hereinafter
\nwill  be  referred to as the Act.  The appellants  who\twere
\npetitioners  in\t the High Court were the proprietors  of  an
\nEstate,\t known as Paikpara Estate, in the district of  Puri,
\nbearing\t Touzi Nos. 268, 269 and 270.  The  respondents\t are
\nthe State of Orissa and its officials.\n<\/p>\n
The  facts on which the High Court based its judgment  under
\nappeal\tareas  follows.\t Within the  said  Paikpara  Estate,
\nthere  were several tenures and\t sub-proprietory  interests.
\nThe Paikpara Estate vested in the State of Orissa by  virtue
\nof  a notification issued under s. 3 of the Act,  on  August
\n23, 1953.  It is common ground that the interests of tenure-
\nholders and sub-proprietors within the said estate have\t not
\nyet been taken over under the provisions of the Act.   Under
\nthe  tenure-holders  aforesaid, there  were  some  occupancy
\nholdings  which Lad been purchased by the  proprietors,\t the
\nappellants in this Court, long ago.  Thus the proprietors by
\nvirtue of their purchase became occupancy raiyats, under the
\ntenure-holders\t or  sub-proprietors,  in  respect  of\t the
\nholdings  purchased by them.  It is also common ground\tthat
\nin the last Settlement Khatians their interests as occupancy
\n555<\/span>
\nraiyat8\t in respect of the holdings purchased by  them\thave
\nbeen  recorded.\t  On the lands of  the\toccupancy  holdings,
\nthere  were  several buildings which were used\tas  Katcheri
\nhouses\tby the proprietors, for the administration of  their
\nestate.\t  In January 1954, according to the  petitioners  in
\nthe High Court, the State Officials took illegal  possession
\nof   those  buildings  situate\ton  the\t raiyati  land,\t  as
\naforesaid.  The appellants thereupon made an application  to
\nthe Collector of Puri for vacant possession of the lands and
\nthe buildings, described in the petition, on the  allegation
\nthat those lands together with the buildings, purchased from
\ntenants\t with rights of occupancy, were, after\tpurchase  by
\nthe proprietors, used as Katcheri house by them.  They\talso
\nalleged that those properties had not vested in the State of
\nOrissa as a result of the said notification, under the\tAct.
\nPart  of  the  said house had been let\tout  to\t the  Postal
\nDepartment.   The Anchal Adhikari of that area wrote to\t the
\nPostmaster,  and Superintendent of Post Offices, not to\t pay
\nrent to the proprietors.  The Postal Department, therefore,
\nvacated\t that portion of the building in  their\t occupation,
\nwhich has gone into the occupation of the State\t Government.
\nAnother portion of the property, which was used as  dhangola
\nwas  let  out  for storing paddy, to a\tthird  party.\tThat
\ndhangola  was also taken illegal possession of by  the\tNaib
\nTehsildar of the place.\t Other portions of the property also
\nare  in illegal possession of the State Government,  through
\nits  Anchal Adhikari.  It was thus claimed on behalf of\t the
\nproprietors  that the State Government had no right to\ttake
\npossession  of the property, as it did not form part of\t the
\nestate\twhich had been acquired under the Act, and  had,  on
\nnotification,  vested in the State Government.\tThe  learned
\nCollector  of  Puri  did  not  concede\tthe  demand  of\t the
\nproprietors, and held that the occupancy holding is situated
\nwithin the tenure held
\n556<\/span>
\nunder the proprietors and lay within the geographical limits
\nof  the\t (state which had vested in the\t Government.   Being
\naggrieved  by  the aforesaid order of the  Collector,  dated
\nNovember  20,  1956, the proprietors moved  the\t High  Court
\nunder  Art. 226<\/a> of the Constitution for relief against\twhat
\nwas  alleged to be illegal interference with their  interest
\nnot as proprietors but as occupancy tenants.  The High Court
\ndismissed the proprietors’ claim chiefly on the ground\tthat
\nthe  question raised by the petition before the\t High  Court
\nwas  “practically  concluded  by  the  observations  of\t the
\nSupreme\t Court in the case of K. C. Gajapati Narayan Deo  v.
\nThe State of Orissa<\/a> (1).\n<\/p>\n
It is manifest that the controversy raised in this case\t has
\nto be answered with reference to the provisions of the\tAct.
\n‘Estate’  has been defined in cl. (g) of s. 2 of the Act  as
\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      ”\t ‘estate’ includes a part of an\t estate\t and
\n\t      means any land held by or vested in an  Inter-
\n\t      mediary  and included under one entry  in\t any
\n\t      revenue  roll or any of the general  registers
\n\t      of   revenue-paying  lands  and\trevenue-free
\n\t      lands,  prepared and maintained under the\t law
\n\t      relating to land revenue for the time being in
\n\t      force  or\t under any rule,  order,  custom  or
\n\t      usage  having the force of law,  and  includes
\n\t      revenue-free lands not entered in any register
\n\t      or revenue-roll and all classes of tenures  or
\n\t      under-tenures and any jagir, inam or muafi  or
\n\t      other similar grant”;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Explanation I.-Land Revenue means all sums and
\n\t      payments in money or in kind, by whatever name
\n\t      designated  or  locally  known,  received\t  or
\n\t      claimable by or on behalf of the State from an
\n\t      Intermediary on account of or
\n\t      (1)   (1954) S. C. R. 1.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t   557<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      in  relation to any land hold by or vested  in
\n\t      such intermediary;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Explanation  II.-Revenue-free  land   includes
\n\t      land   which  is,\t or  but  for  any   special
\n\t      covenant,\t agreement, engagement\tor  contract
\n\t      would  have  been, liable\t to  settlement\t and
\n\t      assessment of land revenue or with respect  to
\n\t      which  the  State has power to make  laws\t for
\n\t      settlement  and  assessment of  land  revenue;
\n\t      Explanation   III.-In   relation\t to   merged
\n\t      territories estate’ as defined in this  clause
\n\t      shall  also  include any mahal or\t village  or
\n\t      collection  of  more than one  such  mahal  or
\n\t      village  held by or vested in an\tIntermediary
\n\t      which has been or is liable to be assessed  as
\n\t      one  unit\t to land revenue whether  such\tland
\n\t      revenue  be  payable or has been\treleased  or
\n\t      compounded  for  or redeemed in  whole  or  in
\n\t      part”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  definition makes reference to an ‘Intermediary’,  which
\nhas been defined in cl.(h) as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      ‘Intermediary’  with reference to\t any  estate
\n\t      means a proprietor, sub-proprietor,  landlord,
\n\t      landholder,   malguzar,\tthikadar,   gaontia,
\n\t      tenure-holder,\t undertenure-holder,\t and
\n\t      includes\tan  inamdar  a\tjagirdar,  Zamindar,
\n\t\t\t    Ilaquadar, Khorgoshdar, Parganadar,\t Sarbaraka
\nr
\n\t      and Maufidar including the Ruler of an  Indian
\n\t      State merged with the State of Orissa and\t all
\n\t      other  holders or owners of interest  in\tland
\n\t      between the raiyat and the State;
\n\t      Explanation I.–Any two or more Intermediaries
\n\t      holding a joint interest in an estate which is
\n\t      borne  either  on the revenue-roll or  on\t the
\n\t      rent-roll\t of  another Intermediary  shall  be
\n\t      deemed to be one Intermediary for the purposes
\n\t      of this Act;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      558<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      Explanation  II.-The heirs and  successors-in-
\n\t      interest\tof  an\tIntermediary  and  where  an
\n\t      Intermediary is a minor or of unsound mind  or
\n\t      and  idiot, his guardian, committee  or  other
\n\t      legal  curator  shall  be\t deemed\t to  be\t  an
\n\t      Intermediary  for\t the purposes of  this\tAct.
\n\t      All  acts done by an Intermediary\t under\tthis
\n\t      Act  shall be deemed to have been done by\t his
\n\t      heirs and successors-in-interest and shall  be
\n\t      binding on them.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 Reading  the two definitions together, the position in\t law
\nis  that  ‘estate’ includes the interest, by  whatever\tname
\ncalled, of all persons, who hold some right in land  between
\nthe  State at the apex and the raiyat at the base.  That  is
\nto  say, the Act is intended to abolish\t all  Intermediaries
\nand rentreceivers and to establish direct relationship\tbet-
\nween  the  State, in which all such  interests\tvest,  after
\nabolition  under the Act, and the tillers of the soil.\t The
\ninterest of a raiyat is designated by the word ‘holding\t and
\nis  defined by the Orissa Tenancy Act (Bihar and Orissa\t Act
\nII of 1913), as follows: .\n<\/p>\n
\t      ”\t holding” means a parcel or parcels of\tland
\n\t      held by a raiyat and forming the subject of  a
\n\t      separate tenancy”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Under  the,  Orissa Tenancy Act, the unit of interest  of  a
\nproprietor  is\tan ‘estate’.  Under a proprietor  may  be  a
\nnumber of sub-proprietors.  ‘Sub-proprietor’ is also defined
\nin  the Tenancy Act, but we are not concerned in  this\tcase
\nwith  that  class  of holders of land.\tThe  interest  of  a
\ntenure-holder or an under-tenureholder is characterised as a
\n“tenure’.   Thus,  the\tprocess of  in\tfeudalist  and\tsub-
\ninfeudation, which has been similar in all places where\t the
\nPermanent Settlement took place, that is to say, in  Bengal,
\nBihar and Orissa and Madras and Andhra Pradesh,
\n\t\t\t    559<\/span>
\nhas  led to the coming into existence of  proprietors,\twith
\ntheir  estates, sub-proprietors under  them,  tenure-holders
\nand  under-tenure-holders and ultimately the tiller  of\t the
\nsoil,  the  raiyat, whose unit of interest is  a  ‘holding’.
\nThe  Act  was  intended to  abolish  all  proprietors,\tsub-
\nproprietors, tenureholders and under-tennure-holders, with a
\nvariety\t of  names; but did not touch the  interest  of\t the
\nraiyat.\t  The  same person, by transfer or by  operation  of
\nlaw,  might  at\t the same time occupy  different  status  in
\nrelation to land.  He maybe in respect of a particular area,
\nwhich\tis  geographically  included  in  the  estate,\t the
\nproprietor.  That land may be held by a raiyat not  directly
\nunder  a  proprietor but under a  tenure-holder,  who  holds
\ndirectly under proprietor.  The proprietor may have acquired
\nthe  interest  of  a raiyat.  Thus the\tproprietor,  in\t his
\ncapacity as the owner of the estate holds the entire estate,
\nand  he\t may  have by purchase acquired the  interest  of  a
\nraiyat,\t paying\t rent  for  the\t raiyati  interest  to\t his
\nimmediate  landlord, the tenure-bolder.\t The  tenure-holder,
\nin  his\t turn,\tmay  have been liable to  pay  rent  to\t the
\nproprietor.   That is what appears to have happened in\tthis
\ncase.\t The   appellants  held\t the  Paikpara\t estate\t  as
\nproprietors.   They  also  appear  to  have  purchased\t the
\nproperties in question comprising raiyati lands with certain
\nbuildings  thereon from the raiyat.  Hence, the position  in
\nlaw  is\t that  though these lands  with\t the  buildings\t are
\nsituate\t geographically within the ambit of the\t appellants’
\nestate,\t they are not part of the estate.  In  other  words,
\nthe appellants hold those properties with the buildings\t not
\nas proprietors as such, but as rayats.\tIt appears that\t the
\nCourts below have not kept clearly in view this distinction.
\nThe Collector, in the first instance, and the High Court  in
\nthe  proceedings under Art. 226<\/a> of the Constitution,  appear
\nto have fallen into the error of confusing the\tpetitioners’
\nposition  as ex-proprietors, with their present position  as
\nraiyat in
\n560<\/span>
\nrespect of the land on which the buildings stand.  The\tHigh
\nCourt  has  drawn the conclusion from the decision  of\tthis
\nCourt in K. C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. The State of  Orissa<\/a>,
\n(1) and has observed that whether the buildings in  question
\nvested in the Government, on the vesting of the estate under
\ns.  3  of the Act, world depend not upon whether  it  formed
\npart  of the estate acquired by the Government but  on\tthe,
\npurpose\t  for\twhich  the  buildings  wore  used   by\t the
\nproprietors.\tAs  the\t buildings  in\tquestion  had\tbeen
\nprimarily  used as office or Katcheri for the collection  of
\nrent or for the use of servants or for storing grains by way
\nof  rent in kind, the buildings will vest in the  Government
\non  the vesting of the estate itself.  In our opinion,\tthis
\nconclusion drawn by the High Court from the decision of this
\nCourt  is not well-founded in law.  The High Court draw\t its
\nconclusions from the following observations of this Court in
\nthe aforesaid case at Pages 25-26.\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Assuming\t that in India there is no  absolute
\n\t      rule  of\tlaw that whatever is affixed  to  or
\n\t      built on the soil becomes a part of it and  is
\n\t      subject to the same rights of property as\t the
\n\t      soil  itself,  there is nothing in  law  which
\n\t      prevents the State legislature from  providing
\n\t      as a part of the estates abolition scheme that
\n\t      buildings, lying within the ambit of an estate
\n\t      and   used   primarily   for   management\t  or
\n\t      administration  of the estate, would  vest  in
\n\t      the Government as appurtenances to the  estate
\n\t      itself.\tThis  is  merely  ancillary  to\t the
\n\t      acquisition of an estate and forms an integral
\n\t      part   of\t  the\tabolition   scheme.\tSuch
\n\t      acquisition  would come within article 31\t (2)<\/a>
\n\t      of the Constitution and if the conditions laid
\n\t      down in clause (4) of the article are complied
\n\t      with,   it   would   certainly   attract\t the
\n\t      protection    afforded   by    that    clause.
\n\t      Compensation has
\n\t      (1)   (1954) S.C.R. 11,
\n\t      561<\/span>
\n\t      been  provided  for  these  buildings  in\t  s.
\n\t      26(2)(iii)  of the Act and the annual rent  of
\n\t      these  buildings determined in the  prescribed
\n\t      manner  constitutes  one of the  elements\t for
\n\t      computation of the gross asset of an estate.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  observations quoted above of this Court have  reference
\nto the following definition of ,homestead’ in el. (i) of  s.
\n2 of the Act:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “homestead’ means a dwelling house used by the
\n\t      Intermediary  for\t the  purpose  of  his\t own
\n\t      residence or for the purpose of letting out on
\n\t      rent  together with any  courtyard,  compound,
\n\t      garden,  orchard\tand  outbuildings   attached
\n\t      thereto  and  included any tank,\tlibrary\t and
\n\t      place of worship appertaining to such dwelling
\n\t      house  but  does\tnot  include  any   building
\n\t      comprised in such estate and used primarily as
\n\t      office  or kutchery for the administration  of
\n\t      the estate on and from the is day of  January,
\n\t      1946”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
it  will  appear from this definition that  the\t Legislature
\nplaced\ta proprietor’s homestead’ in two categories,  namely
\n(1)  a dwelling house used by the Intermediary for  his\t own
\npurposes  and (2) any building comprised in such estate\t and
\nused primarily as office or.Katcheri for the  administration
\nof the estate on and from the list day of January, 1946.  In
\nrespect\t of  first category the Act provides in\t a.  6\tthat
\nportion\t of the homestead shall be deemed to be\t settled  by
\nthe  State with the Intermediary, who will continue to\thold
\nit  as a tenant under the State Government, subject  to\t the
\npayment of fair and equitable groundrent, except where under
\nthe existing law no rent is payable in respect of  homestead
\nlands.\tIt will be noticed further that the second  category
\nin the definition of homestead, which has not been permitted
\nto the outgoing
\n562<\/span>
\nIntermediary  has  reference to “any building  comprised  in
\nsuch estate”.  It has no reference to any building  standing
\non  rayati  holding  or a  portion  thereof.   This  becomes
\nfurther\t clear\twith reference to the provisions  of  a.  5,
\nwhich lays down the consequences of vesting of an estate  in
\nthe  State.   Under  cl\t (a) of s.  5,\tthe  entire  estate,
\nincluding  all\tkinds  of  lands  described  in\t  meticulous
\ndetails, and other non-raiyati lands vest absolutely in\t the
\nState  Government.   This  Court,  while  dealing  with\t the
\nconstitutionality of the Act, was not concerned with raiyati
\nlands.\t  Its  observations  had  reference  only  to\tsuch
\nbuildings as stood upon the proprietor’s private lands\tlike
\npeel,  seer, Zirat, etc., whicl, were in his  possession  as
\nproprietor  or as tenure-bolder.  It is thus clear that\t the
\nvery  basis  of the judgment of the High Court\tis  entirely
\nlacking.   That\t the  High Court was  not  unaware  of\tthis
\ndistinction becomes clear from the following passage in\t its
\njudgment:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Doubtless, Ryoti lands are excluded from\t the
\n\t      scope  of\t this  clause.\t But  buildings\t and
\n\t      structures standing on Ryoti lands and in\t the
\n\t      possession of the proprietor are not expressly
\n\t      saved.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  first  sentence quoted above is correct,  but  not\t the
\nsecond.\t  ‘I  here  is\tno  question  of  expressly   saving
\nstructures  on\tratyati lands, when it is  absolutely  clear
\nthat raiyati lands are not the subject-matter of legislation
\nby  the\t Act.  The same remarks apply to  the  reference  in
\nsection.  26  (b) (iii).  Section 26 begins with  the  words
\n,for the purpose of this chapter”, namely, Chapter V, headed
\n“Assessment  of Compensation”.\tReading s. 26 as a whole  it
\nis  absolutely clear that for the purpose of  assessment  of
\nthe  compensation  payable  to the  outgoing  proprietor  or
\ntenure-holder,\tof the estate to be acquired,  gross  assets
\nhave to be determined, by aggregating the rents payable by
\n 563<\/span>
\ntenure-holders or under-tenure-holders and raiyats.  It\t is,
\nthus,  clear  that  the rent payable by\t the  appellants  as
\nraiyats in respect of the disputed lands would form part  of
\nthe assets which have to be included in the gross assets  in
\ndetermining  compensation.  But that does not mean that\t the
\ninterests of raiyats also have become vested in the State as
\na result of the notification under.\t3, read with s. 5.
\nFor  the  reasons  aforesaid,  it  must\t be  held  that\t the
\nappellant’s  raiyati  interests\t in the\t lands\tand  in\t the
\nbuildings standing on those lands have not been affected  by
\nthe  abolition of his interest as proprietors, and that\t the
\nState  authorities had-illegally taken possession of  those.
\nThe appeal is accordingly allowed with costs here and below.
\nAppeal allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kumar Bimal Chandra Sinha vs State Of Orissa on 30 April, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 1912, 1963 SCR (2) 552 Author: B P Sinha Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Subbarao, K., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Mudholkar, J.R., Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama PETITIONER: KUMAR BIMAL CHANDRA SINHA Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF ORISSA DATE OF […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-254189","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKumar Bimal Chandra Sinha vs State Of Orissa on 30 April, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-bimal-chandra-sinha-vs-state-of-orissa-on-30-april-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kumar Bimal Chandra Sinha vs State Of Orissa on 30 April, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-bimal-chandra-sinha-vs-state-of-orissa-on-30-april-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1962-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-29T02:28:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kumar-bimal-chandra-sinha-vs-state-of-orissa-on-30-april-1962#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kumar-bimal-chandra-sinha-vs-state-of-orissa-on-30-april-1962\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kumar Bimal Chandra Sinha vs State Of Orissa on 30 April, 1962\",\"datePublished\":\"1962-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-29T02:28:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kumar-bimal-chandra-sinha-vs-state-of-orissa-on-30-april-1962\"},\"wordCount\":2832,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kumar-bimal-chandra-sinha-vs-state-of-orissa-on-30-april-1962#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kumar-bimal-chandra-sinha-vs-state-of-orissa-on-30-april-1962\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kumar-bimal-chandra-sinha-vs-state-of-orissa-on-30-april-1962\",\"name\":\"Kumar Bimal Chandra Sinha vs State Of Orissa on 30 April, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1962-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-29T02:28:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kumar-bimal-chandra-sinha-vs-state-of-orissa-on-30-april-1962#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kumar-bimal-chandra-sinha-vs-state-of-orissa-on-30-april-1962\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kumar-bimal-chandra-sinha-vs-state-of-orissa-on-30-april-1962#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kumar Bimal Chandra Sinha vs State Of Orissa on 30 April, 1962\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kumar Bimal Chandra Sinha vs State Of Orissa on 30 April, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-bimal-chandra-sinha-vs-state-of-orissa-on-30-april-1962","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kumar Bimal Chandra Sinha vs State Of Orissa on 30 April, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-bimal-chandra-sinha-vs-state-of-orissa-on-30-april-1962","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1962-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-29T02:28:29+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-bimal-chandra-sinha-vs-state-of-orissa-on-30-april-1962#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-bimal-chandra-sinha-vs-state-of-orissa-on-30-april-1962"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kumar Bimal Chandra Sinha vs State Of Orissa on 30 April, 1962","datePublished":"1962-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-29T02:28:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-bimal-chandra-sinha-vs-state-of-orissa-on-30-april-1962"},"wordCount":2832,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-bimal-chandra-sinha-vs-state-of-orissa-on-30-april-1962#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-bimal-chandra-sinha-vs-state-of-orissa-on-30-april-1962","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-bimal-chandra-sinha-vs-state-of-orissa-on-30-april-1962","name":"Kumar Bimal Chandra Sinha vs State Of Orissa on 30 April, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1962-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-29T02:28:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-bimal-chandra-sinha-vs-state-of-orissa-on-30-april-1962#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-bimal-chandra-sinha-vs-state-of-orissa-on-30-april-1962"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-bimal-chandra-sinha-vs-state-of-orissa-on-30-april-1962#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kumar Bimal Chandra Sinha vs State Of Orissa on 30 April, 1962"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/254189","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=254189"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/254189\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=254189"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=254189"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=254189"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}