Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
P.B. Gajendragadkar, A.K. Sarkar, K.N. Wanchoo, K.C. Das Gupta and N. Rajagopala Ayyangar

JUDGMENT

P.B. Gajendragadkar, J.

1. The short question of law which arises in these two appeals is whether the High Court of Orissa was justified in issuing a writ directing the appellant State of Orissa not to dispossess the two respondents in the two appeals respectively of the 'Maliahs' without their consent otherwisethan in due course of law. This question arises in this way. In the High Court, six petitions were filed by six ex-Zamindars of Ganjam District respectively under Article 226 of the Constitution against the appellant. Each one of them alleged that he apprehended danger to his property situated in portions of Ganjam Agency tracts known as Maliahs by threat of executive action. The case set out by these Zamindars was that the Ganjam plains which are partly situated in Orissa and partly in the Andhra State, had been permanently settled with them under the provisions of the Madras Regulation No. XXV of 1802. The Zamindaris thus permanently settled on them have been acquired by the respective Governments of the two States under the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act. Adjacent west of Ganjam plains lie hilly tracts which are inhabited by aboriginals. These tracts are known as Agency tracts; portions of these tracts were granted to the Zamindars by various Sanads issued by the Governor-in-Council of Fort St. George, Madras, sometime in 1874 and 1875. The areas thus granted by the Sanads were known as Maliahs and the Zamindars to whom the said areas were granted were described as Muthadars of their respective Maliahs. It appears that on March 30, 1954, the appellant informed the six respective Muthadars by notices duly served on them that their 'Muthas' would be resumed with effect from that date. The petitioners' contention before the High Court was that they had proprietary interest in the areas granted to them and the appellant had not right to resume the lands thus granted to them and was not entitled to recover possession from them. It was pleaded in the petitions by the ex-Zamindars that the notices served on them had intimated to them that the appellant had resumed their interest as Muthadars and that the resumption would take effect from the date of the order. They were also told that the duties and obligations imposed on them by the original Sanads need not be performed by them. The apprehension which the ex-Zamindars felt as a result of these notices gave rise to the six petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. They claimed that a writ or other appropriate order or direction should be issued restraining the appellant from taking the action as threatened by the notices issued by it.

2. The appellant resisted these petitions and urged that the applicants, the ex-Zamindars had no proprietary interests at all in the Maliahs. The said Maliahs had been granted to them by virtue of the office they held under the Sanads and the grant was intended to serve as remuneration for the services rendered by them by virtue of the said office. Thus, the lands were held by the ex-Zamindars on service tenures which were resumable at the will of the appellant. That is why the not........