Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 106 (ORI)

Anei Parida v. Giridhari Biswal

2003-02-04

BASUDEVA PANIGRAHI

body2003
JUDGMENT B. PANIGRAHI, J — This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur in Title Appeal No. 10 of 1992 modifying the judg¬ment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, Jagatsinghpur in Title Suit No. 163 of 1987. 2. The plaintiff-respondents filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant No.2 from disturbing his posses¬sion over the suit Schedule land. The common ancestor of the plaintiffs Narahari Biswal died leaving behind his two sons, namely, Madhu and Bidei. Bidei died leaving behind his sons, namely, Kangali. Madhu died leaving his sons Sridhar and Girid¬hari. Sridhar died leaving his sons Mayadhar, Sankar and Makara. All the properties of Narahari were recorded jointly in the names of sons of Madhu and Bidei. During the consolidation operation the parties were allotted two chakas, vide Chaka No.16, Khata No.24, Plot No.20 with an area of 42 decimals and Chaka No.71, Khata No.24, Plot No.87 with an area of 74 decimals. The defend¬ant No.2 was allotted with Chaka No.59, under consolidation Khata No. 15, plot No. 73, area of Ac. 0.68 decimals situated adjacent to the North of the plaintiffs Chaka No.71. The lands were meas¬ured in presence of both the parties by the Consolidation author¬ities and delivered chakas to them. The plaintiffs accepted delivery of possession of Chaka No. 71, Plot No.87, area of Ac. 0.74 decimals; whereas the other chakas situated in plot No. 73 an area of 68 decimals was delivered to the defendant. The lands have been demarcated. After such demarcation the plaintiffs found that they were delivered less extent than what was recorded in the consolidation record of rights. Therefore, they applied for demarcation by an Amin from the Tahasil Office, vide Demarca¬tion Case No. 118/87. The Tahasil Amin measured the lands allot¬ted to the plaintiffs and detected that they are in possession of Ac. 0.74 decimals which has been reflected correctly in the R.O.R. prepared by the consolidation authorities. But in the map it has been incorrectly shown that Ac. 0.52 decimals of land is said to have been in possession of the plaintiffs in stead of Ac. 0.74 decimals. Therefore, the dispute arose for which the plain¬tiffs filed the suit for injunction. 3. The appellant-defendants in the written statement do not dispute with regard to the ownership of Ac. 0.74 decimals in Chaka No. 71, Plot No.87. 0.52 decimals of land is said to have been in possession of the plaintiffs in stead of Ac. 0.74 decimals. Therefore, the dispute arose for which the plain¬tiffs filed the suit for injunction. 3. The appellant-defendants in the written statement do not dispute with regard to the ownership of Ac. 0.74 decimals in Chaka No. 71, Plot No.87. But the dispute centres round with regard to correction of map prepared by the Settlement authority. There is no dispute that the final map prepared by the Consolida¬tion authorities would be in consistent with the extent of land noted in the R.O.R. prepared by them. If there is any dispute with regard to the map and the R.O.R., then they shall remove such discrepancy by either correcting the R.O.R. or the Map. In this case since the R.O.R. has already been made final and the measurement was carried on in presence of both parties to the extent of Ac.0.74 decimals in Plot No.87, Khata No.24, therefore, the only thing to be determined as to whether the consolidation map denotes Ac. 0.74 Dec. or not. If such discrepancy occurred, it is either for the Settlement authority or for the Revenue authority to remove such discrepancy. In this case discrepancy occurred during the continuance of consolidation proceeding. It is, therefore, for them to correct the map in consultation with the R.O.R. after hearing both the parties. The Commissioner, Consolidation is directed to take steps for cor¬recting the Map’s in consistent with the R.O.R. within four months from the date of communication of this order. It is need¬less to mention that before passing final order both the parties should be given a chance of hearing and the matter shall be disposed of by a reasoned order in exercise of power U/s. 37 of the Consolidation Act. 4. The plaintiff-Respondents were not served with any notice because of passing this order neither party shall be affected. The decree of permanent injunction passed by the trial Court as well as appellate Court is hereby maintained. With the above observations, this appeal is disposed of. Appeal disposed of.