Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 586 (ORI)

TARANGINI RAY v. COLLECTO

2008-07-25

A.S.NAIDU, B.P.RAY

body2008
JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The order dtd. 9th January, 2004 passed by the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar refusing the accord approval to the order of the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar directing to record the disputed lands in the name of the Petitioner under Stithiban status in O.E.A. Case No. 309/1991 is assailed in this Writ Petition. 2. Perusal of the pleadings reveal that the lands in dispute measuring Ac.1.498 decs, appertaining to Major Settlement Khata No. 1182, Plots Nos. 638, 639, 640, 641, 1176, 1177 and 1178 with dwelling house, trees, and tank belonged to Bharati Math of which Mohanta Taponidhi Rama Krushna Bharati Goswami was the trustee. The lands were part of an intermediary estate of the Math. According to the Petitioner the ex intermediary had inducted one Sarajumani Dasi as a tenant in respect of the disputed lands and other lands. In the year, 1959 said Sarajumani Oasi alienated a portion of the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner by a registered sale deed dtd. 21st December, 1959 and delivered possession thereof. It is further stated that Sarajumani Dasi had also alienated some other portion in favour of Sadasiva Mishra by a registered sale deed and said Sadasiva had sold the disputed lands to the Petitioner in the year 1966. 3. In consonance with a Notification issued by the State the entire intermediary estate of Bharati Math vested in the State. It further appears that Bharati Math which is a public religious endowment did not take any steps for settlement of the lands in its favour in consonance with Sections 6 and 7 of the O.E.A. Act. According to the Petitioner she being a tenant her tenancy right was protected u/s 8(1) of the O.E.A. Act and she was deemed to be a tenant under the State, but the lands were recorded under "Bebondobasti" status. In the year 1991 a suo motu proceeding was initiated by the Revenue Officer-Cum-O.E.A. Collector, Bhubaneswar for settlement of the lands belonging to Bharati Math recorded as "Bebondabasti" and the said proceeding was registered as O.E.A. Case No. 309/1991. In course of hearing of the said case the present Petitioner filed a petition to implead her as a party on the ground that she had purchased the lands from Sarajumani Dasi and also Sadasiva Mishra and was in possession of the same. The said petition was resisted by Lord Lingaraj Mohaprabhu. The Addl. In course of hearing of the said case the present Petitioner filed a petition to implead her as a party on the ground that she had purchased the lands from Sarajumani Dasi and also Sadasiva Mishra and was in possession of the same. The said petition was resisted by Lord Lingaraj Mohaprabhu. The Addl. Tahasildar, however, allowed the petition filed by the Petitioner and directed to record the lands in her favour under Stithiban status on payment of assessed rent and cess as admissible under law and further directed to delete the name of Mohanta Taponidhi Rama Krushna Bharati Goswami from the records. The case was thereafter directed to be placed before the Sub-Collector for approval as per the Notification issued by the Government. Before the Sub-Collector an objection was filed by Mohanta Taponidhi on behalf of the Math and Lord Lingaraj raising several allegations. The Sub-Collector after considering the objections set aside the order passed by the Addl. Tahasildar directing to record the lands under Stithiban status in favour of the Petitioner and remitted the matter for fresh disposal. The said order, as stated earlier, is assailed in this Writ Petition. 4. Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, forcefully submitted that initiation of the suo motu proceeding in respect of tenanted lands, itself was misconceived. It is submitted that the Petitioner was inducted as a tenant in respect of the disputed lands. She was possessing the same and was carrying on cultivating operation. She alienated the said lands in favour of the Petitioner and by virtue of such alienation the Petitioner stepped into the shoes of her vendor and became a tenant under the Math. It is stated that on the date of vesting the Petitioner was possessing the lands as a tenant and as such she has been rightly recognized as a tenant under the State. 5. These submissions are repudiated by Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing for the Math. According to him under the O.E.A. Act there is no provision to confer Stithiban right on a tenant. That apart, the Petitioner got herself impleaded in the O.E.A. proceeding and prayed to record the lands in her favour which was otherwise not permissible. Mr. 5. These submissions are repudiated by Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing for the Math. According to him under the O.E.A. Act there is no provision to confer Stithiban right on a tenant. That apart, the Petitioner got herself impleaded in the O.E.A. proceeding and prayed to record the lands in her favour which was otherwise not permissible. Mr. Mohanty further submits that Bharati Math is a Public Religious Endowment and is governed under the provisions of Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act and as such alienation of any property of creation of any right or title, interest or permanent tenancy required prior permission u/s 19 of the O.H.R.E. Act, 1951 corresponding to Section 58 of the 1939 Act. Thus, according to Mr. Mohanty, the sale deed said to have been executed in favour of the Petitioner without obtaining prior permission of the Commissioner was ab initio void and this aspect was not considered by the Addl. Tahasildar. In short, according to Mr. Mohanty, neither the vendor of the Petitioner nor the Petitioner was ever inducted as a tenant by the ex-intermediary and the claim was fictitious. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the records so also the impugned orders. Under the provisions of the O.E.A. Act, a person who was inducted as a tenant and was in possession of the lands as such on the date of vesting had to be recognized as a tenant under the State subject to same restrictions and liabilities. Law is well settled that for recognizing a tenant no quasi judicial proceeding need be initiated. It is apt to state that the O.E.A. Collector was required to conduct an administrative enquiry and if he was satisfied that a person was in fact inducted as a tenant by the ex-intermediary and was in possession of the lands as tenant on the date of vesting he could recognize him as a tenant under the State. In the case of Radhamani Dibya and Others Vs. Braja Mohan Biswal and Others, a Full Bench of this Court held as follows: Section 8(1) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act makes no provision for an application. No enquiry is contemplated under this section. The section is merely declaratory of the continuity of the tenure of tenants as it was immediately before the date of vesting. Braja Mohan Biswal and Others, a Full Bench of this Court held as follows: Section 8(1) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act makes no provision for an application. No enquiry is contemplated under this section. The section is merely declaratory of the continuity of the tenure of tenants as it was immediately before the date of vesting. No application was entertainable for determining rival claims u/s 8(1). 7. In the case at hand, the Petitioner on the basis of an application filed got herself impleaded as a party to O.E.A. Case No. 309/1981 though there was no provision for a tenant to be impleaded as a party in a suo motu proceeding initiated for settlement of the lands. That apart the ex-intermediary not only disputed induction of the vendor of the Petitioner as a tenant but also took a stand that by virtue of the alienation, the Petitioner has not acquired any right, title - or interest as the said alienations were made without obtaining prior permission of the Commissioner of Endowments. This aspect has also not been considered by the Additional Tahasildar-cum-O.E.A,. Collector. The order of the O.E.A. Collector further reveals that the said authority had directed to record the lands under Stithiban status in favour of the Petitioner. with law. Such a direction was also not in accordance with law. 8. In view of the aforesaid infirmities, this Court finds that the Sub-Collector, who in consonance with the Notification issued by the Government on 6th December, 2000 bearing No. EA-11-16/2000/57677/R had to approve the orders passed by the Addl. Tahasildar) decided not to accord approval and this Court finds no infirmity in the order. The order of Sub-Collector further reveals that he has remitted the matter to the O.E.A. Collector for de novo disposal. Thus, no prejudice whatsoever has been caused to any of the parties. We are therefore not inclined to interfere with the impugned order and dispose of this Writ Petition giving liberty to all the parties to raise their respective submissions before the O.E.A. Collector. They are also granted liberty to file such documents as they deem relevant. The O.E.A. Collector shall consider all the facts and the materials produced and pass necessary orders strictly in consonance with law as expeditiously as possible. B.P. Raj, J. 9. I agree.