Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 364 (ORI)

Rebati Rout v. State of Orissa

2005-06-20

A.S.NAIDU

body2005
JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. : The order dated 9th August, 1994 (Annexure-4) passed by the Addition¬al Commissioner of Settlement and Consolidation, Orissa, Bhuba¬neswar in Revision Case Nos.295-299 of 1998 confirming an order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Kheranga in the district of Balasore in Objection Case Nos.225-229 of 1991 and 190 of 1990 setting aside the order dated 16.4.1993 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Appeal Case Nos.42-46 of 1999 is assailed in this Writ application invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Petitioner Rebati. Rout claiming to be the daughter of one late Dasarathi Rout put forth her claim on the disputed land which stood recorded in favour of Dasarathi Rout along with his co-sharers in the Major Settlement. After the Mouza in question came within the fold of consolidation operation in consonance with the notification issued under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the land register was prepared in which the disputed land was recorded in the name of Sanatan Rout who claimed to be the son and successor of late Dasarathi Rout. Thereafter petitioner Rebati Rout filed four Objection Cases being numbered as 225-229 of 1991 challenged the said recording inter alia on the ground that she being the daugh¬ter of late Dasarathi Rout, Sanatan was not the only legal heir and the lands are to be recorded in her name also. Objection Case No.190 of 1990 was filed by one Ananda Barik claiming his title over one of the disputed plots by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 24.4.1979. The Consolidation Officer who heard the Objection Cases, after discussing all the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence adduced in the case, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that petitioner Rebati Rout had totally failed to substantiate her claim that she was the daughter of late Dasarathi Rout. In view of the aforesaid conclu¬sion, the Objection Cases filed by Rebati Rout were dismissed and the disputed lands were directed to be recorded in the name of Sanatan. Being aggrieved, by the order of the Consolidation Officer, petitioner Rebati Rout preferred Appeal Case Nos.42-46 of 1991 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bhadrak. In view of the aforesaid conclu¬sion, the Objection Cases filed by Rebati Rout were dismissed and the disputed lands were directed to be recorded in the name of Sanatan. Being aggrieved, by the order of the Consolidation Officer, petitioner Rebati Rout preferred Appeal Case Nos.42-46 of 1991 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bhadrak. The Deputy Director, however, relying upon an enquiry report made by the Sub-Inspector of Schools to the effect that Rebati Rout was the daughter of Dasarathi came to the conclusion that Rebati Rout being the daughter, in consonance with the Hindu Succession Act she had a right to succeed to her father’s property.” The appel¬late authority accordingly directed that the lands should be recorded in the names of both Rebati Rout and Sanatan Rout joint¬ly. The said order of the appellate authority was challenged by Sanatan Rout in four Revisions filed under Section 36 of the Act before the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Bhubaneswar who after hearing the counsel for the parties de¬clined to rely upon the enquiry report of the Sub-Inspector of Schools on the ground that the said report had not been made in consonance with direction issued by any authority, nor any judi¬cious procedure had been followed. Discussing the materials available, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that Rebati Rout had failed to adduce any evidence excepting the report of the Sub-Inspector of Schools which was inadmissible and failed to prove that she was the daughter of Dasarathi Rout. On the basis of such conclusion, the revisions were allowed. The order passed by the Deputy Director was set aside and the findings and conclu¬sions arrived by the Consolidation Officer were confirmed. 3. After receiving notice, a counter-affidavit has been filed by the contesting opposite parties repudiating the aver¬ments made and allegations levelled by the petitioner in the Writ application. 4. Mr.Kar, learned counsel appearing for the contesting opposite parties, took a preliminary objection to the effect that one Writ application challenging the orders passed in four Objec¬tion cases, four Appeals and four Revision Cases is not maintain¬able and the Writ application should be dismissed on that ground alone. 4. Mr.Kar, learned counsel appearing for the contesting opposite parties, took a preliminary objection to the effect that one Writ application challenging the orders passed in four Objec¬tion cases, four Appeals and four Revision Cases is not maintain¬able and the Writ application should be dismissed on that ground alone. According to him, Rebati Rout did not produce her school leaving certificate nor did adduce any evidence worth-the-name to prove that she was the daughter of late Dasarathi Rout and the Consolidation Officer had rightly rejected all the Objection Cases f1led by her under Section 9(3) of the Act. According to Mr.Kar, the so-called enquiry report of the Sub-Inspector of Schools was a nullity in the eye of law, inasmuch as neither Sanatan nor any other contesting opposite parties were examined in course of the enquiry. No notice was given to them and the entire episode culminated in submission of the report by the Sub-Inspector of Schools, behind the back of the contesting opposite parties and thus the same cannot be accepted as a piece of evi¬dence. It was further submitted that neither the author of the said report was examined nor any material was produced to reveal the source of it. According to him, the report being an inadmis¬sible piece of document the Commissioner had rightly rejected the same. 5. Mr.Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the other hand forcefully submitted that the report of the Sub-In¬spector of Schools coupled with the School Admission Register and other documents reveal that there was an attempt by Sanatan and others to destroy the school records so as to obliviate the parent-hood of Rebati Rout. Such attempt has been frustrated by the report of the Sub-Inspector of Schools and he being a respon¬sible Government officer, his report could not be ignored at the very threshold. According to Mr.Sarangi, after considering the entire circumstances of the case the Deputy Director had accepted the report and found the petitioner to be, the daughter of Dasar¬athi Rout. Rebati Rout had also filed a suit, being Title Suit No.176/95, and got a decree declaring that she was the daughter of Dasarathi Rout. In view of the said decree of Civil Court, the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner can no more stand. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the materials on record. In view of the said decree of Civil Court, the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner can no more stand. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the materials on record. The submission of Mr.Sarangi that in the meanwhile Civil Court has declared Rebati Rout as daughter of Dasarathi needs to be examined first. It appears that Rebati had filed the suit much after the dispute cropped up between her and Sanatan. The suit was one for declara¬tion of her title over the disputed property. Surprisingly in the suit the State was impleaded as the only defendant. The land being admittedly private land, the State Government had no role to play. Rebati for reasons best known to her did not implead Sanatan in the said suit. Admittedly the dispute cropped up in the year 1990 and the specific case of Sanatan was that Rebati was not the daughter of late Dasarathi Rout. In view of the aforesaid dispute filing of the suit in the year 1995, and that too without impleading the person disputing the daughtership of Rebati and obtaining an ex parte order, appears to be a camou¬flage attempt to ventilate her ill motive. The suit being one for declaration of title, the decree passed will not be binding upon a person who was not a party to the suit. Thus the claim put forth by the petitioner on the strength of the said decree cannot be accepted. At the other hand, it reveals that the petitioner had not come to Court with clean hands and somehow or other managed to obtain an ex parte decree without impleading the necessary parties. The Consolidation Officer discussed all the material evidence adduced before him and arrived at the conclu¬sion that Rebati had totally failed to prove that she was the daughter of Dasarathi. The said finding gets fortified form the voluminous documents produced before the authority by the con¬testing opposite parties. The revisional authority also discussed the evidence in extenso and has upheld the findings of the Con¬solidation Officer. I find that the revisional authority has not committed any illegality or irregularity in discarding the report submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Schools who was neither exam¬ined as a witness nor his report was in consonance with any judicial order. The revisional authority also discussed the evidence in extenso and has upheld the findings of the Con¬solidation Officer. I find that the revisional authority has not committed any illegality or irregularity in discarding the report submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Schools who was neither exam¬ined as a witness nor his report was in consonance with any judicial order. The enquiry was also conducted behind the back of the contesting opposite parties and is therefore is not binding on Sanatan. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the conduct of the petitioner as discussed above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the Consolidation Officer which have been confirmed by the revi¬sional authority. Law is well settled that this Court while exercising certiorari jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not act as an appellate Court and unless the finding of an authority below is palpably illegal, grossly contrary to law and/or shocking to common sense, the same should not be interfered with. Examining the materials available on record on the aforesaid principle, this Court finds that nei¬ther the Consolidation Officer nor the revisional authority have committed any illegality or irregularity in passing their orders and their orders do not suffer form non-consideration of any admissible evidence on record nor is there are any error of law apparent on the face of the records. Accordingly this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order Annexure-4 passed by the revisional authority. The Writ application is, therefore, dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Application dismissed.