Case: T.V.V. Narasimham &amp; Others Vs. State of Orissa

of Jeypore zamindari as originally settled in 1803. It appears that the Inam Commission appointed by the Government in 1862 called for and obtained from the zamindar a statement of pre-settlement and post-settlement inams within the geographical limits of the zamindari; but it did not make any inquiry in regard thereto. But in the year 1907 the Government of Madras directed an inquiry of the inams in the Jeypore zamindari by a Special Deputy Collector by name Meenakshisundaram Pillai. In the inquiry held by him the zamindar did not put forward his claim. His report was not full or complete as it should be and it was simply recorded by the Government in its order dated February 25, 1910. The Government again by its order dated November 16, 1910 directed another officer named Burkitt to make a further or detailed inquiry into the inams of Jeypur zamindari and he submitted his report to the Government which was recorded by it in its order dated May 19, 1914. On the basis of the said report the Government gave notice to the Maharaja of Jeypore to show cause why the said villages found to be pre-settlement inams by Burkitt should not be enfranchised. The Maharaja submitted his objections claiming that all the said villages formed part of his zamindari and the Government had no right of reversion therein. On November 1, 1919 the Government issued the following order No. 2489."The Board of Revenue is informed that the Government have on reconsideration decided to take no further action in connection with the question of the settlement of pre-settlement inams in the Jeypore Zamindary."In this context the relevant records, namely the reports of Meenalcshisundaram Pillai and Burkitt and the objections filed by the Maharaja were not filed in the High Court. If they had been produced as they should have been, the High Court and this Court would have been in a better position to appreciate the situation. But the aforesaid facts were given in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State in O.J.C. No. 68 of 1954 and the correctness of those facts is not disputed before us. From the foregoing narration, the factual and legal position was this:The inamdars were holding the said inams under grant made by the Jeypore Maharaja prior to 1803. The Government claimed reversionary rights therein on the basis that these were pre-settlement inams not included in the assets of the zamindari at the time of the. permanent settlement. The Maharaja claimed that the said villages were part of his zamindari i.e. they were included in the assets of the zamindari at the time of the permanent settlement. The Government presumably accepted that claim by deciding not to take further action in connection with the settlement of the pre-settlement inams of the Jeypore zamindari. It is not possible to accept the contention that there was only inaction on the part of the Government in the aforesaid circumstances. As there were conflicting claims between the Maharaja and the Government, and by withdrawing further action the Government accepted the claim of the Maharaja namely, that the Inamdars were holding the inams as under-tenure holders under the zamindar. This was a clear recognition of the Inamdars title to hold under the zamindar. We agree with the High Court that the Government "recognized " the said grants within the meaning of S. 3 (2) of the Madras Act.16. As regards the second and the third groups of villages there is nothing on the record which discloses any recognition by the Government of the grants of the said inam villages. It does not appear that the Government had directed any inquiry into the titles of the said inams or did any act de hors the inquiry to recognize the said title. We find it very difficult to agree with the High Court that mere inaction on the part of the Government amounts to recognition of the grants in favour of the Inamdars. But the learned Additional Solicitor-General contends that the Inam Rules framed by the Government providing for an inquiry, and particularly the rule directing the confirmation of title on the basis of possession would amount to recognition within the meaning of S. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Act. We cannot accept this contention. Inam Rules were framed by the Government in 1859 for investigating into the titles of various inamdars and for enfranchising inams. These rules proprio vigore did not confer title on, or recognize title of any inamdar. They lay down only a procedure for ascertaining the titles in those areas where an inquiry was held for the purposes of investigation of titles and confirmation thereof. In this case no such inquiry appears to have been held in respect of korpad Paragana. These rules do not therefore help the State. In our view the High Court went wrong in holding that the British Government recongnized the said inams.17. Lastly the learned Additional Solicitor General contended that a grant of pre-settlement inam villages which did not fall within the definition of an estate in S. 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Act would be an estate within the definition of that expression in S. 2 (g) of the Orissa Act and therefore the Government validity issued the notifications under S. 3(1) of the Orissa Act abolishing the aforesaid villages not recognised by the Government. This contention has been raised or the first time before us. The contention raised is not a pure question of law, but depends upon the proof of the conditions laid down in the said cl. (g) of S. 2 of the Orissa Act. We do not think we are justified in allowing the respondent to raise a plea of mixed question of fact and law for the first time before us. There must have been very good reasons for the State not raising the extreme contention in the High Court. We should not be understood to have expressed our opinion one way or the other on this question.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]14. The foregoing discussion leads us to the following conclusion: recognition signifies an admission or an acknowledgment of something existing before. To recognise is to take cognizance of a fact. It implies an overt act on the part of the person taking such cognizance. "Recognition" is, therefore, an acknowledgment by the Government of the title of a grantee expressly or by some unequivocal act on its part. Acquiescence in the context of certain surrounding circumstances may amount to recognition, but it must be such as to lead to that inevitable conclusion. Mere inaction de hors such compelling circumstances cannot amount to recognition within the meaning of the section.15. Now coming to the merits of the case we shall first deal with the group of villages admittedly lying within the geographical limits of Jeypore zamindari as originally settled in 1803. It appears that the Inam Commission appointed by the Government in 1862 called for and obtained from the zamindar a statement of pre-settlement and post-settlement inams within the geographical limits of the zamindari; but it did not make any inquiry in regard thereto. But in the year 1907 the Government of Madras directed an inquiry of the inams in the Jeypore zamindari by a Special Deputy Collector by name Meenakshisundaram Pillai. In the inquiry held by him the zamindar did not put forward his claim. His report was not full or complete as it should be and it was simply recorded by the Government in its order dated February 25, 1910. The Government again by its order dated November 16, 1910 directed another officer named Burkitt to make a further or detailed inquiry into the inams of Jeypur zamindari and he submitted his report to the Government which was recorded by it in its order dated May 19, 1914. On the basis of the said report the Government gave notice to the Maharaja of Jeypore to show cause why the said villages found to be pre-settlement inams by Burkitt should not be enfranchised. The Maharaja submitted his objections claiming that all the said villages formed part of his zamindari and the Government had no right of reversion therein. On November 1, 1919 the Government issued the following order No.Board of Revenue is informed that the Government have on reconsideration decided to take no further action in connection with the question of the settlement of pre-settlement inams in the Jeyporethis context the relevant records, namely the reports of Meenalcshisundaram Pillai and Burkitt and the objections filed by the Maharaja were not filed in the High Court. If they had been produced as they should have been, the High Court and this Court would have been in a better position to appreciate the situation. But the aforesaid facts were given in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State in O.J.C. No. 68 of 1954 and the correctness of those facts is not disputed before us. From the foregoing narration, the factual and legal position was this:The inamdars were holding the said inams under grant made by the Jeypore Maharaja prior to 1803. The Government claimed reversionary rights therein on the basis that these were pre-settlement inams not included in the assets of the zamindari at the time of the. permanent settlement. The Maharaja claimed that the said villages were part of his zamindari i.e. they were included in the assets of the zamindari at the time of the permanent settlement. The Government presumably accepted that claim by deciding not to take further action in connection with the settlement of the pre-settlement inams of the Jeypore zamindari. It is not possible to accept the contention that there was only inaction on the part of the Government in the aforesaid circumstances. As there were conflicting claims between the Maharaja and the Government, and by withdrawing further action the Government accepted the claim of the Maharaja namely, that the Inamdars were holding the inams as under-tenure holders under the zamindar. This was a clear recognition of the Inamdars title to hold under the zamindar. We agree with the High Court that the Government "recognized " the said grants within the meaning of S. 3 (2) of the Madras Act.16. As regards the second and the third groups of villages there is nothing on the record which discloses any recognition by the Government of the grants of the said inam villages. It does not appear that the Government had directed any inquiry into the titles of the said inams or did any act de hors the inquiry to recognize the said title. We find it very difficult to agree with the High Court that mere inaction on the part of the Government amounts to recognition of the grants in favour of the Inamdars. Butthe learned Additional Solicitor-General contends that the Inam Rules framed by the Government providing for an inquiry, and particularly the rule directing the confirmation of title on the basis of possession would amount to recognition within the meaning of S. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Act.We cannot accept this contention. Inam Rules were framed by the Government in 1859 for investigating into the titles of various inamdars and for enfranchising inams. These rules proprio vigore did not confer title on, or recognize title of any inamdar. They lay down only a procedure for ascertaining the titles in those areas where an inquiry was held for the purposes of investigation of titles and confirmation thereof. In this case no such inquiry appears to have been held in respect of korpad Paragana. These rules do not therefore help the State. In our view the High Court went wrong in holding that the British Government recongnized the said inams.17.Lastly the learned Additional Solicitor General contended that a grant of pre-settlement inam villages which did not fall within the definition of an estate in S. 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Act would be an estate within the definition of that expression in S. 2 (g) of the Orissa Act and therefore the Government validity issued the notifications under S. 3(1) of the Orissa Act abolishing the aforesaid villages not recognised by the Government.This contention has been raised or the first time before us. The contention raised is not a pure question of law, but depends upon the proof of the conditions laid down in the said cl. (g) of S. 2 of the Orissa Act. We do not think we are justified in allowing the respondent to raise a plea of mixed question of fact and law for the first time before us. There must have been very good reasons for the State not raising the extreme contention in the High Court. We should not be understood to have expressed our opinion one way or the other on this question.