Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 743 (ORI)

JAGANNATH MAHAPRAVU BIJE v. STATE OF ORISSA

2008-08-22

SANJU PANDA

body2008
JUDGMENT : Sanju Panda, J. - Challenge has been made in this writ petition to the illegal and arbitrary action of the Tahasildar, Dharmgarh, opposite party No. 2, directing vesting of Ac.13.68 decs. of land belonging to the Petitioner in OLR Ceiling Case No. 23 of 2001 initiated against opposite party No. 3 without issuing notice to the Petitioner violating the principle of natural justice. 2. The facts of the case as narrated in the case records are as follows: The Petitioner-Deity is established and worshiped by the Hindu community living in the tribal area of Kalahandi District. The devotees generously donated the land and contributed huge funds for construction of the temple and to meet the Seva Puja expenses of the deity. Opposite party No. 3 and her two sons Ramachandra and Padmanav and daughter Shyama Dei donated Ac.13.68 decs. of land by an unregistered deed of agreement dated 3.1.2000 and delivered the possession of the land from that date. The deity through its trustee is in uninterrupted peaceful possession of the said land. The land description and area have been given in Annexure-1 to this writ petition. They executed a gift deed on 22.3.2003 vide Annexure-2. In the said registration deed, they specifically stated that due to lack of funds to meet the registration expenses and due to sad demise of their son Ramachandra Panda they entered into one agreement on 3.1.2000 and registered the same later on. In the said deed, they also stated that the possession was handed over to the deity, who was using the usufruct land since January, 2000. While the matter stood thus, all of a sudden, on 23.3.2003 the trustee of the Petitioner and other villagers came to know that the Tahasildar had declared the land in question as ceiling surplus land of opposite party No. 3 in Ceiling Case No. 23 of 2001 by issuing notice on 12.3.2003 to opposite party No. 3 and directing her to hand over the possession to R.I. Golmonda within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice. After receipt of the notice on 12.3.2003, the trustee of the Petitioner went to the Office of Tahasildar but the Tahasildar avoided to give any information to the Petitioner. After receipt of the notice on 12.3.2003, the trustee of the Petitioner went to the Office of Tahasildar but the Tahasildar avoided to give any information to the Petitioner. He disclosed that the disputed land of Ac.13.68 decimals was donated by opposite party No. 3 and her children to the deity who is in possession of the said land since 2000. He also kept the document of the said case under lock and key with himself. Therefore, the Petitioner was totally in dark about the facts of the Ceiling Case No. 23 of 2001. The authority did not give any chance to the Petitioner for hearing to protect his right of possession over the disputed land. His main grievance is that though the Petitioner deity is in possession of Ac.13.68 decs. of land, no notice was served on the deity and no opportunity of hearing was given to the Petitioner deity. Therefore, the Tahasildar violated the principle of natural justice and from a reliable source the trustee came to learn that opposite party No. 2 was bent upon to distribute the aforesaid land among the landless persons of the villagers by end of 2003. Therefore, this writ petition has been filed before this Court. 3. This Court on 28.3.2003 issued notice and as an interim measure directed that until further orders distribution of the ceiling surplus land in Ceiling Case No. 23 of 2001 shall remain stayed. In the meantime the Tahasildar, opposite party No. 2 filed the counter to the writ petition stating therein that the ceiling case was initiated against opposite party No. 3 and after following the procedure prescribed under the law he came to a finding that the land was ceiling surplus land of opposite party No. 3. He further stated that steps had been taken to distribute the ceiling surplus land to the landless persons as per the provision of law. 4. The Petitioner specifically alleged that the certified copy of the order was not granted to him. Opposite party No. 2 stated in his counter that the Petitioner did not apply for any certified copy. From the order sheet of this Court, it appears that this Court called for the LCR. This Court by order dated 8.4.2008 allowed the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to go through the LCR and at that juncture a misc. Opposite party No. 2 stated in his counter that the Petitioner did not apply for any certified copy. From the order sheet of this Court, it appears that this Court called for the LCR. This Court by order dated 8.4.2008 allowed the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to go through the LCR and at that juncture a misc. case was filed by opposite parties 4 and 5, who are the intended beneficiaries of the ceiling surplus land, to intervene in the writ petition. 5. It appears from the facts stated hereinabove that the Petitioner-deity was not heard in the matter and opposite party No. 2 came to a conclusion that the land was ceiling surplus land of opposite party No. 3 without issuing notice to the persons who were in possession of the property. Since the authority has come to a finding approaching the case in an improper manner and violated the principle of natural justice, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, of the Constitution of India sets aside the direction issued by the Tahasildar, Dharmgarh, opposite party No. 2, in Ceiling Case' No. 23 of 2001, vide Annexure-3, and remands the matter to him for affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. If the Petitioner files an objection as per the provision of the OLR Act, the same shall be dealt with by the Tahasildar in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.