Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 724 (ORI)

Banchhanidhi Khanda v. Bishnu Buda

2010-10-28

SANJU PANDA

body2010
JUDGMENT S. PANDA, J. — In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.5.2002 passed by the Collector, Sambalpur in OLR Revision No. 1 of 2000 confirming the order dated 28.4.2000 passed by the Addl.District Magistrate, Sambalpur in OLR Appeal No. 3 of 1998 directing the Revenue Officer and Sub-Collector to proceed with the case for restoration of the case land in favour of the original land holder-opposite party no.1. 2.The facts, as narrated in the writ petition, are as follows: The plea of the petitioner is that he is in possession of the land measuring Ac.0.06 decimals and Ac.0.16 decimals out of Plot Nos. 653 and 656 under M.S. Khata Nos. 188 and 364 of Mouza-Kuchinda Town. The aforesaid land belonged to one Sankari Bag. The petitioner purchased the said land from the said Sankari Bag on 14.10.1956 and since then he is in possession of the same. However, opposite party no.1 filed an application before the Sub-Collector, Kuchinda for restoration of the said land under Section 23-A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (in short, ‘the Act’) claiming that he is a Scheduled Caste person and as the land belonged to his mother Raimati Bag, D/o Shankarsan Bag, he succeeded to the said property and the possession should be restored to him. In the said proceeding, the present petitioner, who is a non-scheduled caste person, appeared and contested the case taking a specific stand that he purchased the said land through an unregistered sale deed in the year 1956. Since he is in possession of the property for more than the statutory period, he perfected his title by way of adverse possession. Therefore, the application filed by opposite party no.1 is liable to be rejected. 3.At the first instance, the Sub-Collector, Kuchinda dropped the proceeding against which an appeal was filed by opposite party no.1. The appellate authority remanded the matter to the Sub-Collector. On remand, the matter was again heard and disposed of by the Sub-Collector on 31.10.1997 holding that the present petitioner perfected his title by way of adverse possession for more than 12 years prior to the enforcement of Section 23-A of the Act as the cut-off date is 26.10.1965. Therefore, the application is not maintainable and the proceeding should be dropped. Against the said order, opposite party no.1 preferred OLR Appeal No. 3 of 1998 to the Addl. Therefore, the application is not maintainable and the proceeding should be dropped. Against the said order, opposite party no.1 preferred OLR Appeal No. 3 of 1998 to the Addl. District Magistrate who disposed of the appeal on 28th April, 2000 reversing the order of the Sub-Collector and directing the Revenue officer and Sub-Collector to proceed with the case for restoration of the case land in favour of opposite party no.1. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petitioner filed OLR Revision Case No. 1 of 2000 before the Collector, Sambalpur who confirmed the order passed by the Addl. District Magistrate. Hence this writ petition. 4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner purchased the land in question in 1956 and from the date of purchase, he is in possession of the same and the final ROR had been published in his favour where in the remarks column, the note of possession had been recorded in favour of the petitioner, both the appellate authority and the revisional authority should have held that the title of the opposite party no.1 had been extinguished and the present petitioner has perfected his title by way of adverse possession over the dispute land. 5.Learned counsel for opposite party no.1, however, submitted that the land in question admittedly belongs to a Scheduled Caste person and the so-called sale deed was an unregistered one. Since the valuation of the sale deed was more than Rs.100/-, the unregistered sale deed is to be ignored totally and both the appellate authority and the revisional authority have rightly held that the petitioner was not able to prove that he was in possession of the property since 1956 and rightly directed the disputed land is to be restored to the rightful owner. Therefore, the impugned order need not be interfered with. 6.The rival submissions of the parties as well as the record reveal that the petitioner has claimed the title by virtue of an unregistered sale deed, valuation whereof is more than Rs.100/- Section 17 of the Registration Act provides that the document is to be compulsorily registered. Since the so-called sale deed is an unregistered one, the same cannot be taken into consideration in view of the provisions of the Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act. Further, the petitioner has not paid the stamp duty on the said document. Since the so-called sale deed is an unregistered one, the same cannot be taken into consideration in view of the provisions of the Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act. Further, the petitioner has not paid the stamp duty on the said document. Therefore, that document could not be treated as a document for transfer of title. The petitioner did not adduce any evidence in support of his claim that he is in possession of the disputed land since 1956 by examining any boundary witness or producing any other documents. ROR published in the year 1982 shows that the note of possession of the petitioner has been recorded in the remark column and at best the petitioner’s possession can be recognized since the publication of the said document i.e. in the year 1982. The petitioner filed the application on 27.12.1991 before the Sub-Collector. Therefore, the appellate authority and the revisional authority have rightly held that the petitioner had not perfected his title by way of adverse possession and also the title of opposite party no.1 had not been extinguished by efflux of time. 7.In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.