RAGHUNATHE JEW AT BHAPURversusBASANTHA KUMAR SAHU AND ORS.

                        RAGHUNATHE JEW AT BHAPUR                                       A
                                           v.
                     BASANTHA KUMAR SAHU AND ORS.

)'                              DECEMBER 9, 1998

       [MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND MR. G.B. PATTANAIK JJ.]                             B

            Constitution of India-Articles 226 & 227-Interference with findings
     of an inferior tribunal-Issue not raised earlier-Entertained by High Court-
     Held : High Cvurt exceeded its jurisdiction-Commitled gross error in
     interfering.                                                                      c
           Orissa Estate Abolition Act I952/0rissa Estate Abolition (Amendment)
     Act 1970-Sections 3 A(/) and Sections 6, 7, 8-Notification issued-
     Declaring intermediatary interests of deity's land-Vested in State free from
     all encumbrances-On application being filed, on behalf of deity, Tribunal
     declared the deity as 'trust estate '-Another notification issued-Declared        D
     intermediary interests of intermediaries whose estate declared as trusts estate
     vested in State free from all encumbrances-Application filed for settlement
     of land with deity,-Objections invited-Collector rejected the objections
     and directed the land to be settled with the deity-No appeal filed by
     respondent-Revision filed after 7 years dismissed by Board of Revenue-            E
     High Court on the basis of roving enquiry set aside the order of the Collector-
     Held-High Court exceeded its supervisory jurisdiction.

            A Notification issued on 27.2.68 under Orissa Estate Abolition Act,
     1952, directed that Debottar Land attached to the appellant Deity vested in
     the State free from all encumbrances. On behalf of the Deity, an application      F
     was made before the tribunal and the tribunal which declared the deity as
     a "trust estate". On 18th March, 1974, under Section 3A(l) of the Act
     another notification was issued, declaring that the intermediary interest of
     all the intermediaries whose estate have been declared as trust estate vested
     in the state free from all encumbrances.
                                                                                       G
           Application was filed under Sections 6, 7, 8 of the Act on behalf of the
     deity for settlement of land with the Deity. Objections filed by the private
     respondents to the said application were rejected by the Collector. The
     respondents never took the stand that the intermediary estate in question did
     not vest under the notification of 1974 as it had already vested pursuant to
                                          443                                          H
    444                         SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A earlier notification of 1968 and it had not been declared as trust estate. No
    appeal was filed. After seven years the respondents invoked Revisional
    jurisdiction of the member, Board of Revenue, but without success. The High
    Court allowed the writ petition preferred by the respondents holding that the
    respondents have acquired an occupancy right over the land in question.

B         Before this court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the
    High Court exceeded its supervisory jurisdiction· by making a roving enquiry
    and that the respondents are not entitled to approach the High Court taking
    a new stand which was not taken before the Estate Abolition Collector.

            Allowing the appeal, the Court
c
          HELD: 1.1. The High Court committed an error in interfering with
    the conclusions arrived at by the Estate Abolition Collector and affirmed by
    the Member, Board of Revenue. [448-C-DJ

          1.2. High Court was not justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to
D   the statP of things that happened on the basis of the notification of the year
    1968. (448-AJ

          1.3. The High Court recorded a finding because of non production of
    the relevant record that there was no declaration of "trust estate" on 26.9. 70.
    When the respondents did not raise this question before the Estate Abolition
E   Collector, it was not open for the High Court to go into that question at all.
    Then again without any material to substantiate a claim of occupancy tenancy
    over the land in question, the High Court came to a conclusion that the
    respondents had acquired occupancy right in the land and such a conclusion
    cannot be sustained in law. [448-A-CI
F           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5282 of
    1996.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.92 of the Orissa High Court
    in O.J.C. No. 2030 of 1987.

G           P.N. Misra and Mrs. Rekha Palli for the Appellant.

            Janaranjan Das and Radha Shyam Jena for the Respondents.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

H           PATTANAIK, .I. The appellant is a public deity and in this appeal the
        RAGHUNATHE JEW AT BHAPUR v. B.K. SAHU [PATTANAIK, J.]            445

Judgment dated 13.11.92 of the Orissa High Court in Original Jurisdiction Case A
No. 2030 of 1987 is being challenged. The deity and the properties attached
to it situated in the District of Dhenkanal, which was earlier a princely state
and it became a part of State of Orissa after its merger in 1948. Under the
provisions of Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the
Act) a notification was issued by the Govt. of Orissa in Revenue Department
on 27.2.68, declaring that the intermediary interests ofDebottar Lekhraj's land B
in the District of Dhenkanai became vested in the State free from all
encumbrances. In accordance with the provisions contained in the Act, it is
the case of the appellant that on behalf of the deity, an application was made
before the tribunal and the tribunal declared the deity as a 'trust estate'. On
18th of March, 1974, in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (I) of C
Section 3-A of the Ac~, the State Govt. issued another notification, declaring
that (i) the intermediary interests of all intermediaries whose estate have been
declared as trust estate under Chapter IIA of the said Act and (ii) those in
respect of which claims and references made under the said Chapter were
pending on the date of commencement of the Orissa Estate Abolition
(Amendment) Act, 1970 (Orissa Act 33 of 1970) and (iii) the intermediary D
interests of all intermediaries in respect of all estates other than those which.
have already vested in the State have passed to and become vested in the
State free from all encumbrances. The appellant thereafter through the Executive
Officer of the deity filed an application under Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Act
for the settlement of land with the deity. The private respondents filed their E
objections pursuant to the notice issued in the aforesaid proceeding inviting
objections from the public and the respondents claimed their tenancy right
 in respect of the lands belonging to the deity. The said proceeding which was
 registered as OEA Case No. 454/74 stood disposed of by the Order of the
 Estate Abolition Collector dated 23.9.77. The said Collector rejected the
objection filed on behalf of the private respondents and rejected the claim of F
 tenancy over the land and further directed that the lands in question be
settled with the deity o:i fair and equitable rent. Pursuant to the said order,
equitable. rent was assessed and 'patta' was issued to the appellant. Though
appeal is provided under the Act, the respondents did not prefer any appeal.
 However, after expiry of seven years the said respondents invoked the suo G
 moto revisional jurisdiction of the Member, Board of Revenue, under Section
 38B of the Act. The said revision application which was registered as OEA
 Revision Case No. 86 OF 1984 stood disposed of by the Order passed by the
 Member, Board of Revenue dated 5.5.1987. The Revisional Authority came to
 hold that the claim of the respondents about their occupancy rights cannot
 be sustained and the institution being a public temple and in view of the order H
    446                         SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments dated 17.1.53, deciding the
    nature of the institution the Estate Abolition Collector rightly directed the
    settlement of land in favour of the deity. The said revision case having been
    dismissed, the respondents approached the High Court invoking the jurisdiction
    under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court by the
B   impugned Judgment allowed the said writ petition having held that the
    respondents have acquired an occupancy right over the land in question. The
    High Court by the impugned Order set aside the order of the Collector dated
    23.9.77 and held that the respondents have occupancy right in the land and
    would be entitled to remain in possession of the land in accordance with law.

C          Mr. Misra, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant
    contends that the High Court exceeded its supervisory jurisdiction under
    Article 226 of the Constitution by making a roving inquiry and by recording
    a finding that the lands attached to the deity could not be vested under the
    notification dated 18.3.74. Mr. Misra further contended that the private
D   respondents having appeared in the Estate Abolition proceedings pursuant
    to the notice issued by the Estate Abolition Collector and having claimed a
    right of occupancy over the land which claim was rejected and the order of
    the Estate Abolition Collector became final is not entitled to approach the
    High Court in a writ petition taking new stand which was not there before the
    Estate Abolition Collector. Consequently, the High Court committed error in
E   entertaining the said contention and in answering the same by making a
    roving inquiry. Mr. Misra also contended that the High Court committed
    serious error in granting occupancy rights over the land in question, without
                •
    an iota of material in support of the said claim of the respondents. Mr. J.R.
    Das, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents on the other hand
F   contended that the question which was urged and answered by the High
    Court in the impugned Judgment was a pure question of law and, therefore,
    there was no bar for deciding the said question and granting relief to the
    respondents even if the respondents had not raised those questions either
    before the Estate Abolition Collector or before the Member, Board of Revenue.
G   Mr. Das also further submitted that the appellant having granted the
    opportunity of producing the relevant order declaring the deity as a 'trust
    estate', the High Court was justified in drawing adverse inference and in
    recording a finding that after the vesting· notification issued in the year 1968,
    there has been no declaration made in favour of the deity and therefore the
    Estate stood vested in the State and in that view of the matter, question of
H   fresh vesting under the notification of 18.3.74 does not arise.
        RAGHUNATHE JEW AT BHAPUR v. B.K. SAHU [PATTANAIK, J.]              447

        We have carefully consiOered the rival submissions at the bar and A
examined the provisions of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. We have also
scrutinised the order of the Estate Abolition Collector dated 23.3.77, rejecting
the claims of the private respondents that they have occupancy tenancy over
the land in question and settling the land with the deity-intermediary on fair
and eq~itable rent as well as the order of the Member, Board of Revenue
dated 5.5.87, refusing to interfere with the order of the Estate Abolition B
Collector in exercise of his suo moto revisionaljurisdiction under Section 388
of the Act. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the
High Court was justified in interfering with such decision of the Estate
Abolition Collector and affirmed by the Member, Board of Revenue in exercise
of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is well C
settled that in exercise of such supervisory jurisdiction, High Court would be
entitled to interfere with the conclusions of an inferior tribunal, if such
tribunal considers any inadmissible pieces of evidence in arriving at its
condusion or ignores material piece of evidence from the purview of
consideration or the conclusion is based upon any error of law or the tribunal
 itself has no jurisdiction at all or that the conclusion is based on no evidence. D
This being the parameters for exercise of power under Article 226 of the
Constitution and if we examine the impugned judgment of the High Court from
the aforesaid stand point, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion
that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the conclusions
arrived at by the Estate Abolition Collector and affirmed by the Member, E
Board of Revenue. It is apparent that after the vesting notification dated
 18.3.74, the appellant filed an application under Sections 6 & 7 of the Orissa
Estate Abolition Act claiming settlement of the land with the deity. In that
 proceeding, public notice was given inviting objections and the private
 respondents had filed their objections, claiming a right of ocs;upancy over the
 land and the Estate Abolition Collector decided that proceeding in favour of F
the appellant and negatived the claim of the respondents. In that proceedings
the respondents never took the stand that the intermediary estate in question
did not vest under the notification of 1974 as it had already vested pursuance
to earlier notification of 1968 and it has not been declared as a 'trust estate'.
No appeal has been preferred against that decision but a suo moto revision G
had been moved before the Member, Board of Revenue and the Member,
 Board of Revenue also dismissed the said revision. None of the parties raised
 the question about the vesting of the estate under notification of 1968 and
 the estate was not declared as a 'trust estate' pursuant to the aforesaid
 vesting of 1968. On the other hand, parties approached the Estate Abolition
 Collector, claiming rights on the basis that the intermediary estate stood H
    448                         SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A  vested by the notification dated 18.3.74. The High Court, therefore, was not
 " justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the state of things that happened
   on the basis of the notification of the year 1968. That apart, the High Court
   itself recorded a finding in the impugned judgment that under 1968 notification
   the Debottar Lakhraji Babel's land did not vest and there is definite distinction
B between the two classes of Debottar property. All the same the High Court
   went on examining the question of vesting under earlier notification and
   recorded a finding because of non production of the relevant records that
   there was no declaration of 'trust estate' on 26.9. 70. When the respondents
   did not raise this question before the Estates Abolition Collector in the
   present proceedings out of which the impugned order emanates, it was not
C open for the High Court to go into that question at all. Then again without
   any material to substantiate a claim of occupancy tenancy over the land in
   question the High Court came to the conclusion that the respondents had
   acquired occupancy right in the land and such a conclusion cannot be
   sustained in law. In the aforesaid premises, we are of the considered opinion
   that the High Court committed gross error in interfering with the conclusions
D arrived at by the Estate Abolition Collector and affirmed by the Member,
   Board of Revenue. We, therefore set aside the impugned judgment of the
   High Court in Original Jurisdiction Case No. 2030 of 1987 and hold that the
   said case stands dismissed. Necessarily, therefore, the order of the Estate
   Abolition Collector dated 23.9.77, directing the settlement of land with the
E appellant deity is affirmed. This appeal is allowed, but in the circumstances,
   there will be no order as to costs.

    A.M.                                                           Appeal allowed.