Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 200 (ORI)

Prafulla Kumar Singh Samanta v. State of Orissa

2017-02-27

A.K.RATH

body2017
JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. The plaintiffs are the appellants against an affirming judgment in a suit for declaration of right, title and interest, permanent injunction and for correction of record of right. 2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit property was originally recorded in the name of ex-ruler of Nayagarh in 1932 settlement. Status of the said land was ‘Jalasaya’. In 1947, the suit land was jointly recorded in the names of their grandfather vide Ext.2. In Tetema No.170 of 1946-47, it was jointly recorded in the names of their father. They are members of joint family. They were in possession of the suit land and paying rent. After their death, the plaintiffs being the successors, inherited the suit land. They used to pay rent to the Govt. In June, 2000, when they went to the Tahasil Office, Nayagarh to deposit rent, the same was not received and they were informed that the suit land was recorded as a Govt. land in the hal settlement operation. Thereafter they obtained the certified copy of the hal settlement R.O.R. and came to know that the settlement authorities had recorded the suit land under ‘Rakhita Anabadi’ in favour of the Govt. Taking advantage of such wrong recording, the Tahasildar tried to lease out the suit land and the defendant nos.3 to 7 threatened to interfere in their possession. 3. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendant nos.1 and 2 (respondent nos.1 and 2 herein) entered appearance and filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. Defendant nos.3 to 7 also filed a written statement. Apart from challenging the maintainability of the suit, it is stated that the suit is not maintainable for non-service of notice under Sec.80 C.P.C. The suit land as per the sabik settlement was a ‘Jalasaya’ recorded in the name of the Govt. After coming into operation of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, the suit land was vested in the Govt. In the hal settlement, it has been recorded as a Govt. land. 4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck nine issues. To substantiate the case, the plaintiffs had examined five witnesses and on their behalf five documents had been exhibited. The defendant no.1 had examined one witness and on his behalf one document had been exhibited. land. 4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck nine issues. To substantiate the case, the plaintiffs had examined five witnesses and on their behalf five documents had been exhibited. The defendant no.1 had examined one witness and on his behalf one document had been exhibited. The defendant nos.3 to 7 had examined three witnesses and on their behalf six documents had been exhibited. The suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs unsuccessfully challenged the judgment and decree of the learned trial court before the learned Adhoc Additional District Judge, (F.T.C.), Nayagarh in R.F.A. No.25/42 of 2007-04, which was eventually dismissed. 5. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the land in question originally belong to ex-ruler of Nayagarh. In Mutation Proceeding No.1226/1947-48, the same was recorded in the ancestral of the plaintiffs. They were the tenants under the intermediary. After vesting of estate, their tenancy right is not affected. They are the deemed tenants. In view of the same, the courts below committed a manifest illegality and impropriety in dismissing the suit. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate supported the judgments. 7. Learned trial court on a threadbare analysis of evidence on record as well as pleadings came to hold that the plaintiffs has admitted that in 1932 settlement, the suit land appertaining to sabik plot no.696 was recorded in favour of the ex-ruler. In Revenue Misc. Case No.418 of 1947-48, the same was recorded in favour of Laxmipriya Mali Manima, Harihar Singh Samanta and Madhusudan Singh Samanta. In the hal settlement, the suit plot has been recorded in favour of the Government under Rakhita Anabadi Khata vide Ext.C. Hal Plot No.145 is the ridge of tank. Ext.2, i.e., Tetema Form No.194 shows that area Ac.4.98 decimals of land was mutated in favour of Bhagabat Singh Samanta and others in Revenue Mutation Proceeding No.1226/1947-48. On comparison of Exts.1 and 2, learned trial court held that the sabik plot no.696 measuring area Ac.1.51 decimals of land corresponds to Tetema No.160 under Khatian No.189. Area Ac.4.98 decimals of land was mutated in favour of Laxmipriya Mali Manima and others. But then, Ext.1 discloses that the land measuring an area Ac.1.51 decimals of land was mutated which corresponds to sabik plot no.696, area Ac.14.62 decimals. Area Ac.4.98 decimals of land was mutated in favour of Laxmipriya Mali Manima and others. But then, Ext.1 discloses that the land measuring an area Ac.1.51 decimals of land was mutated which corresponds to sabik plot no.696, area Ac.14.62 decimals. No explanation had been afforded by the plaintiffs that how the area had been extended to Ac.4.98 decimals though mutation was applied for an area of Ac.1.51 decimals. The plaintiffs had not produced the relevant documents as to how Ac.4.98 decimals of land have been mutated or recorded in their names. The plaintiffs had failed to substantiate how the suit land stood recorded in favour of Laxmipriya Mali Manima and others. It further held that mutation neither creates title nor extinguishes title. No material was produced to substantiate the case of the plaintiffs that mutation was effected on the basis of the documents. The mutation of the land was not consonance with the area. The kisam of suit land was ‘Jalasaya’. There was no rhyme or reason to change the nature of the suit land by the revenue authorities. The suit land was a part of the intermediary estate. The estate vested in the State under the provisions of Orissa Estate Abolition Act. Neither the plaintiffs nor their ancestors took any steps for settlement of the land. The genuineness of the entries made in Exts.B and C had not been challenged. The general public are using the suit tank and utilizing its water for cultivation purposes. The plaintiffs never used the suit land. They had failed to produce any evidence to establish their claim over the same and accordingly answered issue no.6 in negative. The said findings have been affirmed by the learned appellate court. 8. Admittedly, the suit land was recorded in the name of the State in the sabik as well as hal settlement R.O.R. The suit land was originally part of the intermediary estate. After coming into force of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, the intermediary estate vested in the State. It is a big tank. The villagers used the water of the tank for agricultural purposes. Reliance placed on the order of the Mutation Case No.418/47 is totally misplaced. After coming into force of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, the intermediary estate vested in the State. It is a big tank. The villagers used the water of the tank for agricultural purposes. Reliance placed on the order of the Mutation Case No.418/47 is totally misplaced. The apex Court in the case of Smt. Sawarni vs. Smt. Inder Kaur and others, AIR 1996 SC 2823 held that mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue. Both the courts on a threadbare analysis of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary as well as pleadings came to hold that the State is the rightful owner having valid title of the suit land. There is no perversity or illegality in the findings of the courts below. 9. In the ultimate analysis, the appeal fails and is dismissed, since the same does not involve any substantial question of law.