Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 33 (ORI)

SRI RADHANATH DAS v. CONSOLIDATION OFFICER

2000-01-15

L.MOHAPATRA, PRADIPTA RAY

body2000
JUDGMENT : Pradipta Ray, J. - Admittedly the disputed lands being Hal Plot Nos. 4354 measuring Ac. 0.73 and 4334 measuring Ac. 1.35 recorded in L.R. Khata No. 380 belonged to the deity Shree Govinda Jew Thakur, opp. party No. 10. In the Record of Rights published in 1927 and in 1977 the said lands were recorded in the name of the said deity with opp. patties 5 to 9 as the marauders. In both the Record of Rights published in 1927 and' 1977 the Petitioner's mime was recorded in the remarks column as in permissive possession for performing seva-puja and other allied services. 2. During consolidation operation in the area opp. party No. 5-Brajakishore Panda, filed an objection being Objection Case No. 1621/81 claiming that he is the sole marfatdar of the deity. The present Petitioner also filed an objection being Objection Case No. 790 of 1981 for recording him as a titian rayed. In his objection the Petitioner claimed that he obtained a lease of the suit land from the marauders in the year 1955 as the remuneration for rendering seva-puja and other services to the deity. The Petitioner also claimed that he was in cultivating possession and rendering services to the deity. 3. Both the said objection cases were heard together by the Consolidation Officer, Satyabadi. By judgment and order dated February: 19,1982 the Consolidation Officer dismissed the Petitioner's objection case and allowed the objection case filed by Brajakishore Panda. The Consolidation Officer passed the following orders: It is therefore, ordered that the possessory interest of Radhanath Das recorded in columns 31/32 of the Land Register be deleted. It is further ordered that the names of all the marauders except Brajakishore Panda appearing in Column-2 of the Land Register also be deleted. In the result, the claim of Brajakishore Panda in Objection Case No. 1621 is allowed and the claim of Radhanath Das in Objection Case No. 790 is disallowed. 4. The Petitioner filed an appeal being Appeal Case No. 198 of 1982 before the Deputy Director, consolidation, Bhubaneswar Range-Ill. By judgment and order dated May 31, 1982 the said appellate authority allowed the appeal and directed to record the name of the Petitioner as per the records of 1977 settlement. Against the aforesaid appellate order Brajakishore Panda, opp. 4. The Petitioner filed an appeal being Appeal Case No. 198 of 1982 before the Deputy Director, consolidation, Bhubaneswar Range-Ill. By judgment and order dated May 31, 1982 the said appellate authority allowed the appeal and directed to record the name of the Petitioner as per the records of 1977 settlement. Against the aforesaid appellate order Brajakishore Panda, opp. party No. 5 claiming to be the sole marfatdar of deity filed Revision Case No. 3219 of 1983 before the Commissioner, Consolidation, Orissa u/s 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Consolidation Act'). By the impugned judgment and order dated June 28, 1990 the Consolidation Commissioner allowed the said revision, set aside the order of the appellate authority and up-held the order of the Consolidation Officer. In his judgment the Consolidation Commissioner recorded a finding that the present Petitioner was not rendering seva-puja of the deity and Beharilal Panda having no right over the suit land had no authority to execute the unregistered patta in favor of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid provisional order, the Petitioner has filed this writ application. 5. As already pointed out, admittedly the deity is the owner of the disputed property. The authorities under the Consolidating Act are concerned with the question of title or ownership of the land. The present Petitioner and also the opp. parties 5 to 9 were agitating for their rights under the deity. The dispute relating to the office of marfatdar and possession of " the deity's land by any person cannot' come under the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities. Such disputes relating to the property of the deity are to be determined under the provisions of the Special Act enacted for the purpose, namely, the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951. It has been stated that already a dispute u/s 41 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act has been raised and the same is pending consideration. The Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 also contains the provisions for obtaining possession of any land of the deity if any person is found to be in unauthorized possession thereof. It has been stated that already a dispute u/s 41 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act has been raised and the same is pending consideration. The Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 also contains the provisions for obtaining possession of any land of the deity if any person is found to be in unauthorized possession thereof. Accordingly, we are of the view that the disputes, namely, who is the marfatdar of the, deity Shree Govinda Jew Thakur and whether the Petitioner has the right to remain in possession of the, disputed land' do not 'fall for determination under the provisions of the Consolidation Act and the said disputes are required to be determined under the provisions of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act: 6. For the foregoing reasons we set aside all the orders passed,by the authorities under the Consolidation Act, namely, the Consolidation Officer, Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Consolidation Commissioner. We make it clear that the disputes involved as mentioned hereinabove, if raised by any of the parties, will be decided by the authorities under the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act in appropriate proceedings. The writ application is accordingly disposed of.