LAW FOR ALL

Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951 - ss. 8, 2(h), 2(n) and 3 - Claim for protection as `raiyat' - Property classified as uncultivable, vested in State by virtue of notification issued under the Act - Claim of Respondent that ex-intermediaries in respect of the property had leased the same to her predecessor-in-interest, who, immediately before vesting of the same in the State Government, was thus in possession of the property as a tenant under an intermediary i.e. was a `raiyat' under the Act, and from date of the vesting, was a deemed tenant under the State Government and consequently Respondent too was a deemed tenant under the State Government and entitled to protection of his possession - Writ petition filed by respondent allowed by High Court - Order challenged - Plea raised that High Court lost sight of the relevant provisions of the Act and did not consider the effect of alleged gross acts of fraud committed by the respondent - Held: On facts, matter needs to be re-considered by the High Court. Words and Phrases - Fraud - Meaning and effect of - Discussed - Indian Contract Act, 1872 - s.17. By virtue of a Notification issued in 1954 under Section 3 of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951, the disputed property vested in the State. Respondent claimed that in 1933, the ex-intermediaries in respect of the said property had leased the same to her predecessor-in-interest , who, immediately before vesting of the same in the State Government, was thus in possession of the property as a tenant under an intermediary i.e. was a `raiyat' under the Act, and from date of the vesting, was a deemed tenant under the State Government and consequently Respondent (who bought the disputed property from her predecessor-in-interest) too was a deemed tenant under the State Government and thus entitled to protection of his possession. In regard to the said claim, Respondent filed writ petition seeking direction to the State to accept rent from her in respect of the disputed property, for a declaration of tenancy in her favour and for an injunction against the State restraining them from interfering with her possession. The High Court allowed the writ petition. In appeals to this Court, the judgment of the High Court was inter alia challenged on grounds that the High Court lost sight of the relevant provisions of the Act and did not consider the effect of the alleged gross acts of fraud committed by the respondent .