Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1440 (ORI)

Malati Das v. Prafulla Ch. Singh

2017-12-12

BISWANATH RATH

body2017
JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. Heard Shri D.P. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri N.C. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.1 and Shri U.K. Sahoo, learned Addl. Standing counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.2 and 3. 2. This matter involves a proceeding initiated under Section 3 of the Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (By Scheduled Tribes) Regulations, 1956 and confirmation of the said order by the Appellate Authority. 3. Assailing the impugned order, Shri Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner taking support to the plea of the petitioner in the Courts below that the petitioner had the support of a registered sale deed, submitted that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the existence of the sale deed created a right in favour of the petitioner. It is under the circumstance, learned counsel for the petitioner sought for interference by this Court in the impugned orders and setting aside the same. 4. Shri Pati, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.1 in his opposition, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner though took a plea of owning the land by virtue of a sale deed, but she failed to produce the original of the sale deed and the petitioner had only produced a Xerox copy of the unregistered sale deed. In spite of her chance for producing the registered sale deed in the appellate forum, the petitioner failed in producing the original also. It is thus contended that for the failure of the petitioner in producing the original of the registered sale deed, she had no case and the case has been rightly appreciated by the Courts below. 5. Considering the rival contentions of the respective parties, this Court finds, the petitioner apart from taking the plea of sale deed being entered into between the petitioner and the original land owner, the petitioner had also taken a plea of adverse possession for her residing over the disputed property since long. This Court observes, in the event, the petitioner had taken a plea of availability of sale deed, there was no question of petitioner’s taking plea of adverse possession. That apart, since the petitioner’s case was based on a sale deed involving the disputed property, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to produce the original of the sale deed to take help of the same. That apart, since the petitioner’s case was based on a sale deed involving the disputed property, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to produce the original of the sale deed to take help of the same. For failure of producing the sale deed in original, this Court finds, there has been right consideration of the issue involving by the Courts below and for concurrent finding of fact by the Court below, this Court finds no scope for interfering with the impugned orders. 6. The writ petition stands dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Interim order dated 09.07.2001 passed by this Court in Misc. Case No.7880 of 2001 stands vacated.