JUDGMENT : Rao, J. - These two petition's are heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment as they raise common questions of law and similar questions of fact. 2. O.J.C. 113/54 is filed by Raja Bhanuganga Deb, ex-Ruler of Bamra State and O.J.C. 128/54 is filed by Harihar Singh Mardaraj Bhramarbar Ray, ex-Ruler of Khandapara State. In both the applications, the Petitioners pray for the issue of appropriate writs quashing the proceeding under the Orissa Merged States' (Laws) Act, 1950, in respect of the State Khamar lands before the Sub. Divisional Officers, as the provisions of the Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act, 1950 and the orders passed and actions taken thereunder by the Sub-Divisional Officers are ultra vires, void and without jurisdiction and to issue writs directing the Sub-Divisional Officers to forebear from taking any further action giving occupancy rights, fixing rents and issuing pattas to any person in respect of the lands which are declared to be private properties of the Petitioners in the merged States. The main allegations of the Petitioners in their respective applications are as follows. 3. The Petitioners are the ex-Rulers of Bamra and Khandapara States which were Feudatory States and which acceded to the Dominion of India after the Indian independence. There was an agreement executed between the Governor-General of India and the Petitioners in each application whereby the latter ceded to the Dominion of India, and agreed to transfer the administration of his State to the Dominion Government from 1st January, 1948. In Article 3 of the said agreement it was stipulated as follows: The Raja shall be entitled to full ownership, use and enjoyment of all private properties as distinct from State properties, belonging to him on the date of this agreement. In pursuance of the said agreement, it was decided by the Government what were the respective personal properties and the State properties and the adviser for the Orissa States forwarded a list of the Petitioners' private properties which had been accepted by the Government of India. The Government of India issued also a memorandum stating illustratively some of the rights and privileges of the Rulers and the members of their family and expressed that the said rights and privileges and others not mentioned but existing, should be acceded to them according to the practice that prevailed before the 19th August, 1947. The Government of India issued also a memorandum stating illustratively some of the rights and privileges of the Rulers and the members of their family and expressed that the said rights and privileges and others not mentioned but existing, should be acceded to them according to the practice that prevailed before the 19th August, 1947. Under that practice which was prevailing, the full ownership, right, title and interest of the Ruler was not subject to any power Or authority. In paragraph 17 of that memorandum, it was also provided that the Jagir and personal properties of the Rulers should be free from all taxes and should be outside the land revenue jurisdiction of the Provincial Government, It was also mentioned that it was a matter for the Provincial Government to decide, but the Government of India felt that the ordinary land revenue laws should apply. By a subsequent letter from the Adviser for Orissa States to the Petitioners, the Khamar lands including the Abadi and Anabadi areas were specified as the personal properties of the Petitioners. The Petitioners were exercising their full right of ownership, use and enjoyment of all the aforesaid private properties, some by cultivating with the help of farm servants, some by hired labourers and some by engaging different tenants for different years for cultivation purposes. The Orissa Tenants Protection Act, 1948 was extended to the State of Bamra and Khandapara by Orissa Merged States (Laws) Ordinance, 1949 which was replaced by the Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act of 1950, on the 3rd of March, 1950; and this Act extended the operation of the several provincial Acts to the merged States which included the Orissa Tenants Protection Act. In or about 1952, a number of persons of Bamra applied to the Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of the Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act for granting occupancy rights to them and getting the lands recorded in their names on the ground that they were in the cultivating possession of the said Khamar lands, which had been declared to be the personal and private properties of the Petitioners as distinct from the State properties and to fix a fair and equitable rent. The Petitioners were enquired in to by subordinate revenue officers. 4. The Petitioners were enquired in to by subordinate revenue officers. 4. In O.J.C. 113/54 the Sub-Divisional Officer passed orders that the Petitioners in the said cases may be declared as occupancy raiyats and the Ruler as the tenure-holder and he settled the rents. In O.J.C. 128/54 the persons who cultivated the lands in the year 1949 applied to the Sub-Deputy Collector, Khandapara, to be restored to possession under the provisions of the Orissa Tenants Protection Act, and the Sub-Deputy Collector passed orders in their favour and the Petitioner was asked to restore the lands to the said persons. The Petitioner then moved this Court against the said order and in O.J.C. 37/52 this Court quashed the proceedings under the Orissa Tenants Protection Act. The Deputy Collector took up 57 Khamar cases of the opposite parties and fixed rent in respect of the lands as per the statement attached to the petition. The Collector on appeal, subsequently approved of the said recommendations regarding fixation of rent and directed issue of pattas to the opposite parties. On these facts, the Petitioners alleged that the acts of the Sub-divisional Officers interfered with their full rights of ownership, use and enjoyment of their private properties which were guaranteed to them under Art, 3 of the agreement, They also challenged the provisions of the Orissa Merged States' (Laws) Act, IV of 1950 and the exercise of the executive powers of the State Government alleged to be in pursuance of the said enactment as without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed, and as contrary to Article 368 of the Constitution of India. They also contended that Section 7 of the Orissa Merged States' (Laws) Act, 1950, did not extend any existing law, but made a new law curtailing the Petitioners' full right of ownership, use and enjoyment of their personal and private properties. They contend that the said Section 7 does not provide for any judicial review of the action of the executive and consequently the section is ultra-vires, and also the said provision was a piece of discriminatory legislation and consequently void under Article 14 of the Constitution. They contend that the said Section 7 does not provide for any judicial review of the action of the executive and consequently the section is ultra-vires, and also the said provision was a piece of discriminatory legislation and consequently void under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Petitioners also contended that the conferment of occupancy rights by the subordinate revenue officers, and then by the Sub-divisional Officers, and only the approval of the same by the Collector in the case of Khandapara were without jurisdiction as they were not the appointed authority under the said Act. 5. The opposite party No. 1, the State filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegations of the Petitioners and alleging that along with he list of private properties, a letter of Mr. Rege was sent to the effect that in respect of all the properties, particularly the landed properties, which were finally accepted by the Government of India, as private properties, the enjoyment of which was always to be subject to land revenue, tenancy and other laws of the State, and that all properties whether in the way of lands, agricultural or otherwise, and buildings should be subject to the laws of the State and that consequently the State was competent to legislate with regard to the same. It is also alleged that the Petitioner in O.J.C. 113/54 filed petitions giving his consent for the recording of the respective tenants as occupancy tenants in respect of the holding in their possession, but subsequently he filed a general objection in all the cases raising the plea that his private properties had been protected by the agreement and that he should not be treated as a landlord so far as the Khammar lands are concerned. The opposite parties also alleged that the Petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the petitions and did not object to the assessment which was done in a fair and equitable manner according to the rates prevailing in the neighbouring villages, nor did they challenge the possession claimed by the tenants. The tenants also appeared in this Court and opposed the applications. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners in both the applications, Mr. The tenants also appeared in this Court and opposed the applications. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners in both the applications, Mr. K. Patnaik, ably argued several questions of law arising in these applications as to the discriminatory nature of Section 7 of the Orissa Merged States' (Laws) Act, 1950 as also about the unconstitutionality of the law directing the settlement of rents and conferment of occupancy rights on the opposite parties in these two applications, and want of jurisdiction of the respective officers to settle and confer occupancy rights on these lands of the two Petitioners. 7. The Administration of Orissa States Order was passed in 1948, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Extra Provincial Jurisdiction Act of 1947 By a notification of the Government of Orissa, Home Department, dated 25th July, 1949, the following amendment was made to the Administration of Orissa States Order. After paragraph 10 of the said order the following new paragraph was added, viz.: 10-A Notwithstanding anything contained in the tenancy laws of the merged States as continued in force by sub-paragraph 4. (a) where land is held as service tenure, either under the Ruler or any member of his family the liability of the holder of such tenure to render service for the use and occupation thereof shall cease, and he shall, on payment of such rent as may be assessed by the Provincial Government as fair and equitable, acquire occupancy right therein (b) when a person holds khamar, nijjote or any other private lands of a Ruler, which has been recognised as such by the provincial Government he shall not be liable to ejectment but shall be liable to pay such fair and equitable rent as may be fixed by any competent authority appointed in this behalf by the Revenue Commissioner, or the Commissioner, Northern Division, as the case may be, and thereupon he shall acquire right of occupancy in respect of such lands: Provided that such liability of the holder of any service tenure shall not cease and no occupancy right shall accrue to him therein, if, on the application of the Ruler the Provincial Government direct that the holder shall continue to render such service. X X X X The provisions of the Orissa States Merger Act, 1950, are more or less similar to the provisions of the Administration of the Orissa States Order as far as the points for consideration in these appreciations are concerned. 8. Section 7, Clause (h) of the Orissa Act, IV of 1950, is as follows: (h) When a person holds khamar, nijjote or any other private lands of a Ruler, which has been recognised as such by the Provincial Government, he shall not be liable to ejectment, but shall be liable to pay such fair and equitable rent as may be fixed by any competent authority appointed in this behalf by the Revenue Commissioner may be and thereupon such lands. (The proviso to the said clause in the Act of 1950 was omitted by Act, XXXI of 1951). The contention of the Petitioners in the first instance is that this clause contemplates the fixation of a fair and equitable rent by any competent authority appointed in the behalf by the Revenue Commissioner. The learned Counsel contends that the rent was fixed in these Cases by sub. Divisional Officer in the case of Bamra and by the Deputy Collector in the case of Khandapara which was also approved by the Collector. The competent authority, according to him, appointed under Clause (h) Section 7 is the District Collector and therefore, the learned Counsel contends that as the fair and equitable rent in the case of these Petitioners' lands was fixed by the Deputy Collector, the said fixation of rent and conferment of occupancy right is void and is of no legal effect. 9. In the Government of Orissa, Home Department, letter No. 8045 (2) Sts., dated 9th- November, 1949, from P.N. Mohanty Esq. I.A.S., Additional Secretary to Government to the Commissioner, Northern Division, and the Revenue Commissioner, Orissa it was directed by the Government as follows: X X X X It is accordingly proposed to implement by legislation the decision reached by Government in respect of service jagir lands and Khammar, nijjote or other private lands and meanwhile Government see no reason why the conversion of these lands into ryoti on, payment of rent should not be proceeded with so as to finalise matters before the next kist of land revenue is realised. X X X X As regards Khammar, nijjote or any other private Lands of a Ruler which have been recognised as such by the Provincial Government, the holders concerned may be notified to apply for occupancy right to the authority appointed by you in this behalf who will fix a fair and equitable rent and will grant occupancy right in such lands while service jagir lands can be leased by Government to the jagir holders concerned such a procedure will not be possible in the case of Khammar lands as the Ruler will still be a tenure holder of the lands converted into ryoti and will receive rents from the tenants concerned. In the case of Khammar, nijjote or other private lands of a Ruler in which tenants are granted occupancy right by Government, the Ruler concerned will have only a rent receiving interest. I am to request you kindly to take up this matter in earnest and see that the lands for which applications are made by the service jagir holders or tenants on Khammar, nijjote land etc., of Rulers are recorded in 'their names on ryoti as soon as possible. It may be made clear in the Case of the Khammar, nijjote or other private lands of a Ruler converted into ryoti that the tenants who have or the Commissioner, Northern Division, as the case he shall acquire right of occupancy in respect of acquired ryoti status will pay rents to the Ruler concerned. It is requested that the work of conversion into ryoti of the above two categories of lands should be completed in good time before payment of the next kist so that the jagirdars may pay their rents and ceases to Government while the tenants on Khammar, nijjote lands etc., may pay their rents to Rulers and the ceases to the Government. 10. In obedience to this, a letter was issued by the Secy., to the Commissioner, Northern Division, Sambalpur, to all Dist. Magistrates in the Northern- Division. The copy of that letter, No. 7342 (6) Rev II. 25/49, dated 18-11-49 was filed before us, and it is as follows: Sub Conversion of jagir lands into ryoti in States. I am directed to forward, herewith a copy of Government of Orissa, Home Department letter No. 3045 Sts., dated 9.11.49 together with a copy of Home Department Notification No. 1492 Sts. 25/49, dated 18-11-49 was filed before us, and it is as follows: Sub Conversion of jagir lands into ryoti in States. I am directed to forward, herewith a copy of Government of Orissa, Home Department letter No. 3045 Sts., dated 9.11.49 together with a copy of Home Department Notification No. 1492 Sts. dated 25-7-49 for your information and immediate implementation of the Government decisions. "(2) Service jagir holders and tenants on Khammar and Nijjote lands should apply to the Sub-divisional Officers for conversion of their lands into ryoti. "(3) As required in paragraph 4 of the Government letter No. 3045 (2) Sts., dated 9-11-49, the Commissioner has been pleased to appoint you "as the authority competent to fix a fair and equitable rent and grant occupancy right of the lands. "(4) You are requested to give the highest priority to this item of work and submit progress reports of the work done so as to reach this office by the 10th of each monih. "(5) A copy of this letter together with the copy of the Government orders referred to above are being sent to all Sub-Divisional Officers in view of the urgency of the work. 11. The applications for conferment of occupancy-rights and for fixation of fair and equitable rents were filed in the case of Bamra to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deogarh, as per enclosure 'A' series. The enquiry with regard to the fixation of fair and equitable rent and conferment of occupancy right was made by one Sri S.P. Hota, the second officer and his report was submitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Shri M.M. Sarif who ordered as follows: Report of the Second Officer seen provision of Section 7-H of the Merged States Act is very clear. The petitions may be settled as an occupancy raiyat settlement made accordingly. 12. The applications for settlement of fair and equitable rent and conferment of occupancy rights were filed in the case of Khandapara before the Deputy Collector in-charge, Khandaparas, who made an enquiry and submitted a report to the Sub-Divisional Officer, who passed an order to this effect., viz. "Submitted to the Collector as per recommendations of the Deputy Collector, Khandapara, On the last page." and the Collector passed the order Which was as follows and the subsequent order was passed by Shri R.M. Mohanty, Deputy Collector, in-charge, Khandapara which was as follows: Collector's order seen. "Submitted to the Collector as per recommendations of the Deputy Collector, Khandapara, On the last page." and the Collector passed the order Which was as follows and the subsequent order was passed by Shri R.M. Mohanty, Deputy Collector, in-charge, Khandapara which was as follows: Collector's order seen. Inform the Applicant to pay rent to Raja Saheb and ceases to the State for 1954-55 by 30-7-54. Inform Raja Saheb accordingly. From these extracts, it is clear that the fair and equitable rent was not fixed by the appointed authority, but by the Deputy Collector or Sub-Collector in the case of Bamra and in the case of Khandapara the fair and equitable rent was fixed by the Deputy Collector, Khandapara, and the same were approved by the Collector. On these facts, the learned Counsel contends that the fair and equitable rent were not fixed by the competent authority required under the section the Revenue Commissioner having appointed the District Magistrates (District Collectors) as competent authority to fix the fair and equitable rents and to consider the occupancy rights. The learned Counsel's contention therefore, is that these proceedings are void and illegal and ought to be quashed. 13. The Petitioners alleged in their applications that the rents were fixed and the occupancy rights were conferred by orders of officers who had no jurisdiction to do so. There was no specific denial of this allegation by the opposite party. It was only after the Court directed and the Petitioners gave notice to the learned Advocate-Genera to produce the orders of the Revenue Commissioner appointing the competent authority to fix rents and confer occupancy rights that only some copies of orders were filed which show that the respective officers who fixed the rents and conferred occupancy rights, were not the appointed authorities. 14. The learned Government Advocate on behalf of the State does not challenge these facts, but submitted that the Board of Revenue, Orissa, Sambalpur, releasing the mistake committed by the Collector) decided to issue a notification to the following effect. Notification. In pursuance of clause (h) of Section 7 of the Orissa Merged States' (Laws) Act, 1950, the Board of Revenue is, hereby pleased to appoint all the Sub. Notification. In pursuance of clause (h) of Section 7 of the Orissa Merged States' (Laws) Act, 1950, the Board of Revenue is, hereby pleased to appoint all the Sub. Divisional Officers in the districts under the member (Commercial Taxes), as authority competent to fix a fair and equitable rent and grant occupancy right to the tenants concerned ill respect of Khammar, Nijjote or any other private lands of a Ruler which have been recognised by the State Government as such and the Sub-Divisional Officers shall be deemed always to have been so appointed for, the purpose mentioned above." The learned Counsel contends that by virtue of that notification, the illegality complained of by the Petitioners with regard to the conferment of occupancy rights and the settling of fair and equitable rents by 9 officers not competent to do the same under the law would be rectified, and therefore, the contention of the Petitioners should not be accepted. 15. A copy of the notification proposed to be issued by the Board of Revenue was filed before us by the learned Government Advocate. The copy shows that it purports to be a notification No. 6320/R. XIV-25/55 dated Sambalpur, the 18th November, 1955, and it purports to have been signed under order of the Board of Revenue by Shri B.G. Patnaik, Deputy Secretary to the Board of Revenue and is dated 18-11-55. This belated attempt to rectify an obvious error cannot be entertained by us. These petitions were pending in this Court since August, 1954, and Government should have realised their error much earlier. These two applications were argued before us on several dates commencing from 13th of October, 1955. If really such a notification was issued, we have no doubt, it would amount to contempt of Court. But the learned Government-Advocate assured us that such a notification was not issued, and that he only filed a copy of the intended notification embodying the conclusion arrived at by the Board of Revenue. 16. It is also doubtful whether even the issue of such a notification would cure the defect existing in these proceeding and whether it would have any retrospective effect to validate prior illegal proceedings carried out without jurisdiction. 16. It is also doubtful whether even the issue of such a notification would cure the defect existing in these proceeding and whether it would have any retrospective effect to validate prior illegal proceedings carried out without jurisdiction. It is regrettable that the officers concerned betrayed a callous disregard to the rules issued by the Government and did things haphazardly ultimately resulting in the Government measure becoming invalid and the Government put to heavy expenses and persons rights effected illegally. 17. But we are concerned now only with the legality or otherwise of the fixation of fair and equitable rent by the Deputy Collector and the Sub-Divisional Officer and the conferment or occupancy rights by them. As has been shown, the competent authority appointed by the Revenue Commissioner, according to the notification of the Government is the District Magistrate (District Collector) of every district and as the rent was not settled by them, but by their subordinates and as the occupancy rights were not conferred by them, but by their subordinates, we have no doubt that the orders made which are the subject-matter of both these applications by persons unauthorised or incompetent to pass them are void and cannot stand. We accordingly quash all the orders passed in both the applications and set them aside. 18. Mr. Patnaik also contended that the rents fixed, were also not fair and equitable and were not fixed according to the recognised principles; but in view of our finding that the orders fixing the fair and equitable rents and conferring rights of occupancy are void and without jurisdiction, we do not propose to decide this contention and also the other legal contentions under the law and Constitution raised and argued by the learned Counsel in these proceedings. 19. We accordingly allow both the applications and quash the orders passed which art the subject-matters in both the applications fixing fair and equitable rents and conferring occupancy rights. We also direct that the Government should refrain from taking any action under the orders passed fixing rents and conferring occupancy rights. The Petitioners' in both the applications will have their costs. Hearing fee for each of these applications is assessed at Rs. 500/- (Five hundred). Panigrahi, C.J. 20. I agree. 21. Applications allowed. Final Result : Allowed