Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 466 (ORI)

Manguli Pradhan v. State of Orissa

2007-06-20

P.K.TRIPATHY

body2007
JUDGMENT P.K. TRIPATHY, J. : Both the writ petitions, on consent of the parties, were heard analogously and this judgment shall abide the result in the both the writ petitions. 2. Petitioners challenge order of settlement of ceiling surplus land in favour of opposite parties 5 to 7 and the dispute arises therefrom. 3. Undisputed fact apparent on averments made in the writ petitions, rejoinder and the counter affidavit of opposite par¬ties 5 to 7 is that disputed property is the ceiling surplus measuring an area of one acre. Following the provision in Rule 38-A of the Orissa Land Reforms (General) (Rules), 1965 (in short the “Rules”), such land was settled with opposite party No.5 and father of opposite parties 6 and 7 by allotting 50 decimals of land to each of them. They belong to Scheduled Tribe category. On the ground of non-payment of salami in time, learned Tahasildar, Khurda cancelled that settlement on 8.2.1981 and asked the Reve¬nue Inspector to verify if the said land is under encroachment. Simultaneously, Tahasildar also directed for inviting applica¬tions for settlement of that land. On 7.4.1981, Tahasildar noted in the order sheet that Revenue Inspector reported that no person belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes were willing to take the land on payment of usual premium and the Revenue In¬spector in consultation with the Village Level Committee recom¬mended to settle the land with the present petitioners on the ground that they are landless persons. On the self-same date and by the said order, learned Tahasildar settled the land in favour of each of the petitioners. Opposite parties 5 to 7 challenged that order before the appellate authority in OLR Appeal Case Nos. 8 and 9 of 1982. The Officer on Special Duty, Land Reforms, Khur¬da, heard the appeals. Opposite party No.5 and father of opposite parties 6 and 7 also the respondents-writ petitioners participat¬ed in the hearing. On 5.1.1983 that Court set aside the order of settlement with direction to Tahsildar to inform the original settlees to pay the salami and thereafter to dispose of the case in accordance with law. Obviously that order indicated and sug¬gested for settlement of the land in favour of opposite party No.5 and father of opposite parties 6 and 7. Petitioners chal¬lenged that appellate order in OLR Revision Case Nos. 5 and 6 of 1983. Obviously that order indicated and sug¬gested for settlement of the land in favour of opposite party No.5 and father of opposite parties 6 and 7. Petitioners chal¬lenged that appellate order in OLR Revision Case Nos. 5 and 6 of 1983. Learned Addl.District Magistrate (Land Reforms), Puri as the revisional authority, heard and disposed of the revisions on 30.9.1986 upholding the decision of the Appellate Court. 4. Petitioners stated that on 4.12.1992 opposite parties 5 and 6 wanted to forcibly evict the petitioners and then they could ascertain about dismissal of their Revision Cases. On 29.8.1993, opposite parties 5 and 6 again destroyed the fence and dug trench in front of the door of the petitioners and there¬fore, they lodged FIR but the local police did not take any ac¬tion, hence they filed cases under Section 144, Cr.P.C. Petition¬ers further stated that later order of settlement of the land with the opposite parties 5 to 7 was done behind the back of the petitioners and, that order of settlement by Tahasildar is not in accordance with law and therefore, liable to be set aside. Oppo¬site parties filed separate counter in each of the writ peti¬tions, inter alia, stating that Manguli challenge to the order of settlement in favour of opposite parties 5 to 7. Therefore, it appears to be civil dispute, which cannot be settled or decided by writ Court when controversial facts are involved. Under such circumstance, there is no merit in the writ petitions and accord¬ingly both the writ petitions are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.