Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 697 (ORI)

Abhimanyu Mallik v. Baidhar Jena

2016-08-29

BISWANATH RATH

body2016
JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order under Annexure-3 passed by the Revisional Authority under the OLR Act vide O.L.R. Revision No.51 of 1985. 2. Short background involved in this case is that the petitioner claiming to be a tenant under the original landlord filed OLR Case No.3/82 under Section 15(b) of the OLR Act claiming his tenancy right in respect of Khata No.173, Plot No.707, area Acre 0.37 decimals as against the opposite party No.2 who is a subsequent purchaser of the aforesaid property. Petitioner also alleged in the OLR Case that the claim of sale by the opposite party No.1 is a clandestine sale in order to oust the petitioner from his right. In substantiating his case, the petitioner further submitted that he was not only a tenant under the opposite party No.2 but he was also going on paying the rent regularly which was being collected by her husband. The opposite party No.1 claimed that his father was a Bhaga tenant under the opposite party No.2 and after he purchased the land by way of registered sale deed dated 22.9.1982, he became the owner of the disputed property. The opposite party No.1 seriously disputed the claim of the petitioner continuing as a tenant under the opposite party No.2. The proceeding was registered as OLR Case No.3/82. An inquiry report was called for pending finalization of the proceeding and upon spot visit after recording the evidence of as many as eight witnesses, a report as appearing at page No.9 of the brief was submitted indicating therein that the petitioner is staying over the disputed plot by constructing a house and he is also cultivating the land. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and after going through the evidence collected in the inquiry process, the original authority rejected the claim of the petitioner, for which the petitioner preferred an appeal which was registered as OLR Appeal Case No.25 of 1983. This appeal was allowed on contest holding the petitioner to be a tenant over the disputed property. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, the present opposite party No.1 filed a revision, which was registered as OLR Revision Case No.51 of 1985, on the file of opposite party No.5. This appeal was allowed on contest holding the petitioner to be a tenant over the disputed property. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, the present opposite party No.1 filed a revision, which was registered as OLR Revision Case No.51 of 1985, on the file of opposite party No.5. The revision was heard on merit and by the impugned order, the Revisional Authority while allowing the revision, came to hold that the application under section 15 (1) (b) of the OLR Act was not maintainable. While reiterating his stand taken before the Original Authority, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he has a strong case in view of the report submitted before the original authority as available at page 9 of the brief so also following the statement of the witnesses recorded during such investigation clearly establishing that the petitioner is staying over the disputed land by constructing a house. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 on the other hand, submitted that even though the report as well as the evidence disclose that the petitioner is residing over the disputed property and cultivating the suit land but these are all by virtue of forcible action of the petitioner and having no consent either of the original owner or of the subsequent purchaser the opposite party No.1. Further, in absence of any material to establish that the petitioner was at any point of time accepted as a tenant, there is no wrong committed by the Revisional Authority in arriving at its final conclusion. 5. In his opposition, learned State Counsel submitted that there is no error committed by the revisional authority and the revisional order gives no scope for interfering in the impugned order. 6. Considering the submissions made by the respective parties, going through the report at page 9 of the brief and the evidence recorded during spot visit for the purpose of submission of a report before the original authority, this Court finds even though the petitioner could be able to bring home that he is residing over the disputed property by constructing a house and that he is cultivating the disputed land but no materials or information forthcoming in establishing the tenancy right of the petitioner over the disputed property. This Court even finds surprise with the attempt of the petitioner either examining the original owner or at least getting his support by making his appearance in either of the proceedings and filing his pleadings accepting the petitioner as a tenant under him. Even though the original owner is made a party in all the proceedings but the original owner has not come forward to support the case of the petitioner as a tenant. Thus the petitioner has failed in establishing his tenancy right under the original owner, as such he cannot claim such right against the subsequent purchasers. 7. From perusal of the revisional order, this Court observes that the revisional Court even though has taken all attempts to find out the right of the petitioner as a tenant and even though has also arrived at some conclusions negetiving the claim of the petitioner as a tenant but at the conclusion of the order it is indicated that the provision of Section 15(1) (b) is not attracted in the present case, for the materials available on record disproving the claim of tenancy by the petitioner and from the observations of the original authority as well as the Revisional Authority, this Court finds the observation of the Revisional Authority that the provision under Section 15(1)(b) of the OLR Act is not attracted in the present circumstances, is a wrong indication but however, for the materials available on record and for the observations of the Revisional Authority negetiving the claim of the petitioner as a tenant, this Court while deleting the said portion of the order, confirms the findings that the petitioner has failed in establishing his tenancy right either under the original owner consequently, also under the subsequent purchaser. This Court finds no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed for having no merit. Parties are to bear their own cost.