Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1028 (ORI)

Bidyadhar Prusty v. Jitendranath Patra

2016-11-03

BISWANATH RATH

body2016
JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. Filing the writ application, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order passed by the revisional authority, vide Anenxure-9. 2. In spite of sufficiency of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of the private opposite parties. The matter is decided only on contest of the petitioner and the learned State Counsel, Sri S.N. Mishra. 3. Short background involved in this case is that the properties involve in the dispute under Sabik Khata No.63, Plot No.319 corresponding to Hal Khata No.156, Plot No.324 area Ac.0.26 decs. The petitioner claims that the property was recorded in the name of ex-intermediary under Sabik Khata No.63, as finds place in Annexure-5. The Khatian consists of seven plots including the disputed property over Plot No.319. The father of the petitioner claimed to be the tenant under the intermediary in respect of Ac.0.17 decs. out of Ac.0.26 decs. total area involving Plot No.319. It is claimed that in the year 1963-64, the intermediary interest vested in the State and the ex-intermediary submitted rent roll in the name of the father of the petitioner, which was also entered in the Jamabandi/Tenants Ledger, as appearing under Anenxure-1. It is further pleaded that even though the petitioner was a tenant in respect of Ac.0.17 decs. of land out of total extent of Ac.0.26 decs., inadvertently, the area in Jamabandi/Tenants Ledger was recorded to be Ac.0.15 decs. instead of Ac.0.17 decs. In spite of this Jamabandi/Tenants Ledger, there was no preparation of Record of Rights in the name of the father of the petitioner, as a consequence, the father of the petitioner initiated Misc. Case No.52/1982-83 before the Tahasildar, Jajpur for fixation of fair rent. It appears, after conducting due enquiry and observing the compliance like public notice, obtaining report of the R.I., final order was passed for recording the name of the father of the petitioner as against Ac.0.15 decs. in the R.O.R. and consequently, the R.O.R. also stood corrected. In the meantime, in 1991, consolidation operation started in the locality. During consolidation operation, two Objection Cases were filed ; one by Narendra Nath Patra, the predecessor of O.Ps.1 to 7 and the other by one Harihar Patra, the predecessor of O.Ps.8 to 11. In Objection Case No.859/91, the petitioner claimed only 10 annas share in the plot in question. In the meantime, in 1991, consolidation operation started in the locality. During consolidation operation, two Objection Cases were filed ; one by Narendra Nath Patra, the predecessor of O.Ps.1 to 7 and the other by one Harihar Patra, the predecessor of O.Ps.8 to 11. In Objection Case No.859/91, the petitioner claimed only 10 annas share in the plot in question. It appears, Narendra Nath Patra and Harihar Patra claimed recording of their names against the disputed property on the basis of two unregistered “Hat-Patta” dated 17.4.1945 and 6.12.1945. Their names were also registered on the basis of a Registered Sale Deed No.4534 dtd.1.5.1962 involving Plot No.319. The Consolidation Officer by a common order allowed the Objection Case No.801/1991 and rejected the Objection Case No.859/1991. Present Court has nothing to do with Objection Case No.801/1991. An appeal was filed at the instance of the petitioner bearing Appeal Case No.151/1994 challenging the order involving Objection Case No.859/1991. The appellate authority allowed the appeal, however deciding the case in favour of the petitioner in respect of Ac.0.15 decs. O.Ps.1 to 7 preferred Consolidation Revision No.659/1995 challenging the appellate order. The Consolidation Revision has been allowed reversing the order of the appellate authority. 4. Assailing the impugned order, Sri D.P.Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that considering the entry of the name of petitioner’s father in the Jamabandi/Tenants Ledger and on the basis of which, Misc. Case No.52/1982-83 was allowed by the Tahasildar, Jajpur and in absence of challenge to the same, the order passed by the revenue authority involving the right of the petitioner over the disputed property is even binding on the consolidation authority. Further in the said Misc. Case also, a public notice was given in the locality inviting objection before correction of the Record of Rights taken place and there was no objection from any concerned including the present opposite parties. It is also contended that the order passed by the Tahasildar also otherwise remains binding on the parties concerned. Further in the Objection Case, a report was called for from the Tahasildar, Jajpur and since the Tahasildar submitted a report indicating the possession of the opposite parties in respect of Ac.0.09 decs. as against Ac.0.26 decs. over Plot No.319 involving Harihar Patra and Narendra Nath Patra, predecessors of O.Ps.1 to 11. Their right was available maximum to the extent of Ac.0.09 decs. as against Ac.0.26 decs. over Plot No.319 involving Harihar Patra and Narendra Nath Patra, predecessors of O.Ps.1 to 11. Their right was available maximum to the extent of Ac.0.09 decs. The Objection Case involving the petitioner could have been determined allowing the petitioner’s claim over Ac.0.15 decs. of land at the minimum and no right is being created in favour of O.Ps.1 to 11 looking to the contents in the report so far as it relates to Ac.0.15 decs. of land. At the worse, O.Ps.1 to 11 have right over Ac.0.09 decs. of land. Sri Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, further contended that the fact of existence of Jamabandi/Tenants Ledger as well as the contents of the report called for has not been properly gone into by the Objection Authority and the appellate Authority considering all those aspects has rightly reversed the order in the Objection Case. With regard to the impugned order involving the revision, Sri Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the revisional authority has totally ignored the materials available on record and under the circumstance, the revisional order remains contrary to the materials available on record. 5. Sri S.N.Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for O.Ps.12 to 14, while opposing the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in view of the observations and the findings arrived at, the revisional order is justified and it gives no scope to this Court for interfering in the same. 6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties participated, this Court finds, admittedly the properties involving Plot No.319 was recorded in the name of the ex-intermediary under Sabik Khata No.63, as clearly appearing from Annexure-5. There is no dispute that the property involves intermediary interest got vested in Government in the year 1963-64, at which point of time, the ex-intermediary also submitted rent roll in the name of the father of the petitioner, as clearly find place from Anenxure-1. There is also no dispute that the R.O.R. having not been corrected at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was constrained to initiate Misc. Case No.52/1982-83 for fixation of fair rent and the Tahasildar, Jajpur after giving a public notice and obtaining a report from the R.I., allowed the Misc. Case directing therein for correction of the R.O.R. This order since has not been challenged remains binding on the revenue authority. Case No.52/1982-83 for fixation of fair rent and the Tahasildar, Jajpur after giving a public notice and obtaining a report from the R.I., allowed the Misc. Case directing therein for correction of the R.O.R. This order since has not been challenged remains binding on the revenue authority. Law is well settled that the order passed by the revenue authority is binding on the consolidation authority. 7. Now looking to the allegations involving the Objection Case and the revision, this Court further finds that involving the Objection Cases filed by two sets of parties ; one by the petitioner involving Objection Case No.859/1991 during the proceeding, the Consolidation Officer sought for a report from the Tahasildar, Jajpur. It appears, the Tahasildar submitted a report along with the Ekpadia clearly indicating therein that Narendra Nath Patra and Harihar Patra are in possession of Ac.0.09 decs. of land out of Ac.0.26 decs. involving Plot No.319. Assuming that the claim of O.Ps.1 to 11 is accepted on the basis of Ekpadia, their right is reserved to the extent of Ac.0.09 decs. Since the entire area involving Plot No.319 stretching to an extent of Ac.0.26 decs., this Court finds, there was no question of rejecting the Objection Case No.859/1991 filed by the petitioner, considering the claim of the petitioner involving therein was restricted to Ac.0.15 decs. It is based on the materials available on record and also based on the report submitted by the Tahasildar, this Court also finds, the original authority rejecting the case of the petitioner, vide Objection Case No.859/1991 was not justified. Further reading of the order passed by the appellate authority, this Court finds, the appellate authority after taking into consideration all the above aspects, has reversed the order passed by the original authority. This Court accordingly finds, the appellate order has been passed in its right perspective. 8. Further reading of the order passed by the appellate authority, this Court finds, the appellate authority after taking into consideration all the above aspects, has reversed the order passed by the original authority. This Court accordingly finds, the appellate order has been passed in its right perspective. 8. Now coming to consider the validity of the revisional order, this Court finds for the reason assigned herein above that the consolidation authority is bound by the order of the revenue authority and for the Jamabandi/Tenants Ledger indicating the name of the petitioner’s father as a tenant during the vesting of intermediary interest and further for the correction of Record of Rights by the revenue authority under Anenxure-4 has not been challenged by any concerned, further, the private opposite parties having no objection during the correction of the Record of Rights in spite of a public notice given therein and further for the observations of the Tahasildar, Jajpur in the report obtained by the Consolidation Officer clearly indicating the claim of the private opposite parties restricted to Ac.0.09 decs., this Court finds, the finding of the revisional authority is contrary to the materials available on record and accordingly, the same cannot be sustained. 9. Thus, while allowing the writ application, this Court sets aside impugned revisional order under Annexure-9 and restores the order passed by the appellate authority under Anenxure. 8. Parties to bear their respective costs.