Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 215 (ORI)

Bidulata alias Bidyutlata Das v. State of Orissa

2003-03-07

A.S.NAIDU

body2003
JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. — All these Writ Applications have been filed inter alia challenging the orders passed by the authorities under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act (hereinafter called ‘the Consolidation Act’ for the sake of brevity) annexed as Annexures- 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Annexure-1 is the judgment/order dated 18.10.1985 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Gop-Kakatpur in the district of Puri. Annexure-2 is the appellate order dated 28.10.1986 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Puri and Annexure-3 is the order dated 27.2.1999 passed by the revisional authority, i.e. the Commissioner of Consolidation, Orissa. 2. Admittedly one Sania Bhoi, son of Bidya Bhoi and Sara¬tia Bhoi, son of Bhima Bhoi were the recorded tenants in respect of the disputed lands. In the year 1928 by a registered deed, Sania gifted the lands belonging to him to his sister’s son Lokanath, son of Saratia. In 1939, said Lokanath by a registered sale deed transferred the lands in favour of Radhashyam. It is stated that the said sale deed was a nominal one and was executed to avoid attachment of the property in a civil suit. In 1979 said Radhashyam again sold back the lands in favour of Lokanath by a registered sale deed. On 29.5.1979 Lokanath sold some lands to one Brahmananda. When the matter stood thus, Sania died leaving behind his widow Radhi only. On 30.11.1934 Radhi sold the lands to one Gopi Singh. It appears that Gopi Singh transferred the lands to one Sayed Abdul Waheb Ali Saha and others on 17.7.1966. The contesting opposite parties claim that they have obtained the lands from said Sayed Abdul Waheb Ali Saha, got the same mutated in their names and paid rent. It is further averred that in the year 1974 the disputed lands vested with the State under the provisions of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act and the ex land¬lord submitted rent roll in favour of Sayed Abdul Waheb Ali Saha and Ratnakar Sahu and since then they have been recognised as tenants under the State. It is also submitted that in a proceed¬ing initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Proce¬dure, possession of the contesting opposite parties has been declared. 3. After the disputed village came under the Consolidation operation, Lokanath, father of petitioner Bidyutlata filed Objection Case praying to prepare the land register in her name. It is also submitted that in a proceed¬ing initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Proce¬dure, possession of the contesting opposite parties has been declared. 3. After the disputed village came under the Consolidation operation, Lokanath, father of petitioner Bidyutlata filed Objection Case praying to prepare the land register in her name. The Assistant Consolidation Officer, however, relying upon the re¬cording made under the O.E.A. Act, recorded the lands in the names of the contesting opposite parties and being aggrieved by the said recording, three Objection Cases were filed by the petitioner under Section 9(3) of the Consolidation Act. 4. The Consolidation Officer heard all the Objection Cases together and disposed of the same by a common judgment/order dated 18.10.1985, Annexure-1. He held the gift deed executed by Sania in favour of Lokanath to be valid and genuine and to have been acted upon. He also found that no rent was paid by Lokanath or Radhashyam and Radhi had no title to convey in favour of Gopi and the property was gifted by her husband Sania prior to his death. He also found that Gopi Singh had forcibly possessed the lands for more than the statutory period of limitation and had acquired title over the same by adverse possession. With the aforesaid findings the Consolidation Officer held that the con¬testing opposite parties who claimed right through Gopi Singh had acquired title and he directed to record the lands covering L.R. plot Nos. 6694, 6742, 6743, 4246 and 3739 in their favour. He also directed to record L.R. plot No. 3738 in the name of Ratna¬kar. 5. The aforesaid order of the Consolidation Officer was assailed in three Appeals before the Deputy Director of Consoli¬dation. The said appellate authority also confirmed the findings of the Consolidation Officer and dismissed all the three Appeals by his judgment/order dated 28.10.1986, Annexure-2. 6. Against the said appellate order Annexure-2, three Revision Cases were filed. All the Revision Cases were disposed by a common judgment/order dated 23.7.1990. The revisional au¬thority held that as there was no pleading regarding adverse possession, the findings of the authorities below were not sus¬tainable. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order of the revisional authority, opposite parties 2 to 4 filed a Writ Application before this Court which was registered as O.J.C. No. 2970 of 1990. The revisional au¬thority held that as there was no pleading regarding adverse possession, the findings of the authorities below were not sus¬tainable. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order of the revisional authority, opposite parties 2 to 4 filed a Writ Application before this Court which was registered as O.J.C. No. 2970 of 1990. This Court by judgment dated 4th November, 1993 set aside the order passed by the revisional authority and remitted the Revision Cases back to the revisional authority for reconsidera¬tion and re-disposal thereof after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. In consonance with the direction of this Court, the Commissioner of Consolidation re-heard all the Revision Cases and disposed of the same by a common judgment dated 27.2.1999, Annexure-3. Relying upon the oral evidence adduced by the parties and the fact that Lokanath, the predeces¬sor-in-interest of the petitioner had not objected to the con¬struction of the house, and more particularly the admission of Ratnakar Sahu in his deposition that Gopinath Singh was in pos¬session of the lands and that he had purchased 8 decimals out of the disputed lands from Gopinath, the revisional authority came to the conclusion that Gopinath Singh had acquired title being in possession of the disputed lands for more than the statutory period of limitation and directed to record the said lands in favour of the contesting opposite parties. The said order, as stated earlier, is impugned. 8. Mr. A.C. Swain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, forcefully submitted that the authorities under the Consolidation Act had acted illegally and with material irregularity in directing to record the lands in favour of the opposite parties. It is further submitted that as Radhi had no title, Gopi Singh had acquired no right, title or interest over the lands in question by virtue of the sale deed executed by Radhi. Learned counsel also relied upon several decisions, but after hearing the learned counsel we feel that the entire case is much ado about nothing. In fact, all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner have been dealt with by this Court in O.J.C. No. 2970 of 1990. Learned counsel also relied upon several decisions, but after hearing the learned counsel we feel that the entire case is much ado about nothing. In fact, all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner have been dealt with by this Court in O.J.C. No. 2970 of 1990. This Court had categori¬cally held that the Consolidation Officer as well as the Appel¬late Authority had considered all the questions and had rightly recorded the lands in favour of the contesting opposite parties on the basis of the finding that the petitioner had no title over the disputed lands. This Court also set aside the judgment/order passed by the Consolidation Commissioner interfering with the findings arrived at by the Consolidation Officer and the Deputy Director on the ground that the revisional authority had erred in law in reversing the finding on the question of adverse posses¬sion without discussing the evidence and materials on record. The question of acquiring title by adverse possession being purely a question of fact, the evidence on record had to be considered. This Court also upheld the findings of the Consolidation Officer and the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the appellate authori¬ty, with regard to validity of the gift deed executed by Sania in favour of Lokanath. 9. Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the contesting opposite parties, while reiterating the stand that the said opposite parties had acquired right, title and interest over the disputed lands as has been held by the authorities below, further contended that scrutiny of the evidence would clearly reveal that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had admitted such acquisition of title by the said opposite parties. He also contended that after vesting of the disputed lands with the State under the provisions of the O.E.A. Act, title, if any, of the parties had abolished and the lands vested with the State free from all encumbrances. Thereafter fresh title was created by virtue of the settlement orders passed under the said Act. Mr. Mukherjee strenuously submitted that in the present case after vesting of the disputed lands with the State, the same were settled in favour of the aforesaid opposite parties. Neither the petitioner nor her predecessor-in- interest raised any objection and/or challenged the said order of settlement and are thus estopped from raising such contention. Mr. Mr. Mukherjee strenuously submitted that in the present case after vesting of the disputed lands with the State, the same were settled in favour of the aforesaid opposite parties. Neither the petitioner nor her predecessor-in- interest raised any objection and/or challenged the said order of settlement and are thus estopped from raising such contention. Mr. Mukherjee also drew our attention to the oral evidence which clearly reveals that Gopi Singh had set up a Rice Mill on a portion of the disputed lands and possessed the same as the exclusive owner thereof. Ratnakar and Banamali had also purchased portions of the disputed land from Gopi Singh, thus admitting his title. Gopi Singh had also executed several other sale deeds alienating different portions of the disputed lands in favour of many outsiders and during the Consolidation operation the lands were recorded in favour of the said purchasers. 10. After purchase, Sayed Abdul Waheb Ali Saha was in possession of the lands and that possession had been confirmed in a proceeding initiated under Section 145 CrPC being Miscellaneous Case No. 21 of 1982. After spot verification, the consolidation authorities also in course of field verification found the con¬testing opposite parties in physical possession of the disputed lands. Mr. Mukherjee also relied upon the evidence of Lokanath Bhoi, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and Ratnakar, who had clearly admittedly the possession of the aforesaid oppo¬site parties for more than the statutory period of limitation. The petitioner, however, raised an objection that Ratnakar had not been examined in the Court below. Mr. Mukherjee, however, strongly repudiated such submission and drew our attention to the impugned judgment where the statement of Ratnakar had been dis¬cussed. The Consolidation authorities on discussion of the evi¬dence, both oral and documentary, have arrived at the concurrent finding of the fact. While exercising our Certiorari Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, we do not feel called upon to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact. Learned counsel for the petitioner also totally failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record. On going through the judgments of the authorities below, we find that the said authorities had posed right questions and have answered them appropriately. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also totally failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record. On going through the judgments of the authorities below, we find that the said authorities had posed right questions and have answered them appropriately. 11. Law is no more res integra that the jurisdiction of a High Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari is a supervisory juris¬diction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in Writ Jurisdiction. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can only be corrected by a Writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a find¬ing of fact recorded by a Court or Tribunal, a Writ of Certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Court or Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. 12. In view of the discussions made above and considering the matter in the touch-stone of the decision reported in AIR 1964 SC 477 (Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radha Krishnan and others), we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders and dis¬miss the Writ Applications. Parties to bear their own costs. Application dismissed.