Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 423 (ORI)

Madhusudan Parida v. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar

2005-07-13

A.S.NAIDU

body2005
ORDER 13.7.2005 Heard Mr. Kar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Das, learned Addl. Government Advocate. 2. According to the petitioners, the ex-intermediary granted a lease in the year 1943 in respect of the lands apper¬taining to Hal Plot No.4290 measuring an area of Ac.0.028 deci¬mals, Hal Plot No.4289 measuring an area of Ac.0.017 decimals and Hal Plot No.4288 measuring an area of Ac.0.017 decimals situated in mouza Gadakana in the district of Puri and inducted them as tenants by granting a Hata Patta. It is further alleged that petitioners possessed the lands as tenants till the Estate vested with the State Government in consonance with the provisions of Orissa Estate Abolition Act. According to Mr. Kar, in consonance with the provisions of Section 8(1) of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, the tenancy right was protected and the petitioners were deemed to be tenants under the State Government. After vesting of the Estate, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, initi¬ated vesting Misc. case No.97/80, caused enquiries and on being satisfied that the petitioners were inducted as tenants and they were in possession on the date of vesting, recognized them as tenants under the State and settled the lands as would be evident form the order dated 18.3.1981, Annexure-2. In consonance with the said order rent was assessed and the same was collected form the petitioners regularly for quite some time. However, without any rhyme or reason the Revenue Authorities refused to accept rent form the petitioners. On enquiry the petitioners learnt that the Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack in O.E.A. Revision Case No.31 of 1992 by order dated 17.9.1993 purportedly in exer¬cise of powers under Section 38-B of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, set aside the order of the Tahasildar-cum-O.E.A. Collector, Bhubaneswar directing correction of the finally published record of rights and incorporating the possession of the petitioners in respect of the lands. It appears similar orders were also passed in respect of other tenants. The petitioners challenged the order dated 1.10.1993 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue in O.J.C. No.8186 of 1993. This Court by order dated 3.4.1995 held that the Tahasildar was right in making the observations and as the order (Annexure-2) was not passed under the O.E.A. Act it could not have been set aside by the Member, Board of Revenue, in exercise of the revisional power under Section 38-B of the said Act. This Court by order dated 3.4.1995 held that the Tahasildar was right in making the observations and as the order (Annexure-2) was not passed under the O.E.A. Act it could not have been set aside by the Member, Board of Revenue, in exercise of the revisional power under Section 38-B of the said Act. On the basis of the aforesaid conclusions the order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue was quashed. 3. The State Government moved the Supreme Court challeng¬ing the order passed in O.J.C. No.8186 of 1993 and other analo¬gous matters by filing SLP No.3698 of 1998. The Supreme Court declined to interfere and confirmed the order passed by this Court. The SLP was dismissed on 7.4.2000. 4. Thereafter the G.A. Department filed a revision, pur¬portedly to be one under Section 42 A of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules before the Collector, Khurda. The same was registered as Revision Case No.1 of 2000. The revisional authori¬ty set aside the order passed by the Tahasildar in O.E.A. Misc. Case No.92 of 1980 by order dated 24.11.2000. Being aggrieved the tenants once again approached this Court in O.J.C. No.12419 of 2000. This Court quashed the order passed by the Collector (Revisional authority) in Revision Case No.1 of 2000 and directed the Revenue authorities to receive rent in respect of the suit lands in consonance with the decision of the Tahasildar passed in Misc. Case No.97/80. 5. The grievance of the petitioners in the present case is that in spite of the aforesaid scenario of facts the authorities acted illegally in not receiving rent form the petitioners. 6. Mr. Das, learned Addl. Government Advocate, forcefully submitted that the lands in question could not have been leased out by the ex-intermediary and, as such, the authorities have rightly refused to accept rent form the petitioners. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. I have also perused the different orders and other materials annexed to the Writ petition. Section 8(1) of the O.E.A. Act clearly stipulates that the tenant inducted by the ex-intermediary, who was in possession of the lands on the date of vesting shall be deemed to be a tenant under the State Govern¬ment. In view of the aforesaid clear position of law, once it is held that the petitioners were inducted as tenants and were in possession their rights are to be protected. In view of the aforesaid clear position of law, once it is held that the petitioners were inducted as tenants and were in possession their rights are to be protected. The Tahasildar, as would be evident form Annexure-2, conducted an enquiry and on being satisfied that the petitioners were inducted as tenants on the basis of a “Hata Patta” and were possessing the lands on the date of vesting as tenants, recognized them as tenants and direct¬ed to correct the record of rights and receive land revenue. In consonance with the said order Annexure-2 record of rights were corrected and land revenue was received for quite some time, as would be evident form the rent receipt annexed. The order passed by the Tahasildar, vide Annexure-2, was set aside by the Member, Board of Revenue. But then this Court held that the Member, Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to quash the order passed by the Tahasildar in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Section 38-B of the O.E.A. Act and set aside the order of the Member, Board of Revenue. The validity of the said order was challenged by the Member, Board of Revenue before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court uphold the order of this Court conse¬quently the order passed by the Tahasildar, Annexure-2 was found to be valid. That apart the second attempt made by the State to annul the decision of the Tahasildar recognizing the petitioners as tenants by initiating a proceeding under Rule 42 A of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules also became fertile inasmuch the order passed by the Collector was set aside by this Court. The discussion made above would clearly reveal that the order passed by the Tahasildar recognizing/settling the petition¬ers as tenants under the State has been confirmed and all the attempts made by the Revenue authorities to set aside the said order ended in vain. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances the impugned order dated 17.3.2005, vide Annexure-6, passed by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar refusing to accept rent cannot be sustained. The same is accordingly set aside and the authorities are directed to receive rent in respect of the lands covered under Annexure-2 form the petitioners. With the aforesaid observations the Writ Petition is dis¬posed of. Petition disposed of.