Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 280 (ORI)

Upendra @ Upendra Chandra Dhal v. State of Odisha

2017-03-16

BISWANATH RATH

body2017
JUDGMENT : BISWANATH RATH, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed assailing the impugned orders under Annexures-3 & 4 passed by the opposite party Nos.3 & 4 in exercise of their powers under the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act under Section 37 (2) and Section 36 of the Act respectively. 2. Attacking the findings rendered by both the Courts below, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the documents vide Annexures-1 & 2 submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the disputed land and following the information with regard to the status of the land in exercise of power under the R.T.I. Act and a sale deed involving the vendor of the property in the year 1944 appearing at Annexures-1 & 2, contended that both the Courts below have failed in appreciating the sale aspect involving the disputed property and thereby, failed in properly adjudicating the dispute. 3. Sri K.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand objecting the claim of the petitioner submitted that the vendor of the petitioner was never the owner of the disputed land and the petitioner was allotted with a quarter standing over the disputed property as an employee under the Industry Department and after his superannuation, the petitioner instead of vacating the quarter manufactured the documents vide Annexures-1 & 2 making a clandestine endeavour to obtain correction of the land record on the suppression of actual facts. Under the premises, learned Additional Government Advocate objected in entertaining the writ petition and urged for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, this writ petition is the second attempt of the petitioner. The earlier writ petition vide W.P. (C) No.9212 of 2014 was disposed of by this Court with a simple direction for disposal of the Revision within four weeks and both the parties were also directed to maintain status quo in respect of the disputed property. 5. On perusal of the records this Court finds no material establishing the vendor and the petitioner having right, title and interest over the disputed property. 5. On perusal of the records this Court finds no material establishing the vendor and the petitioner having right, title and interest over the disputed property. It is on the other hand, the revisional proceeding was disposed of taking into consideration that the petitioner was not only allotted with the disputed site to be used as a quarter of the Industry Department but also a sum of Rs.100/-per month was even being realized from the petitioner’s muster role towards house rent for his occupation of the same as a quarter and he is not vacating the quarter even after his superannuation. As a consequence of which, a proceeding under the O.P.P. Act is also initiated as against the petitioner. 6. Further, basing upon the information provided by the State Authorities, this Court finds, the land involved therein has been acquired following the land acquisition procedure. Be that as it may, at an earlier instance, during course of hearing, finding strong objection of the petitioner to the claim of the State that the land involved herein has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act by the State of Orissa, a Bench of the this Court by order dated 15.9.2015 passed the following order: “In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the schedule land belongs to the petitioner has never acquired by the State of Orissa at any point of time. List this matter after one week enabling the learned Additional Government Advocate to file an affidavit indicating therein that as to whether the Sabik Khata No.196, Sabik Plot No.1815, area Ac.0.33 dec., Plot No.1814, area Ac.0.29 dec. in mouza-Ankula, district-Cuttack Hal District Jajpur which corresponds to Hal District Jajpur which corresponds to Hal Plot No.2301 has been acquired by the State of Orissa or not.” Following the aforesaid direction, opposite party Nos.1 & 2 filed an affidavit bringing therein the following averments : “6. That it is humbly submitted that in pursuance to the said direction, the documents showing that the suit land has been acquired by the Government as per declaration dated 31.10.1964 and Notification dated 21.11.1964 along with the sketch map is annexed herewith as Annexure-A/2. 7. That it is humbly submitted that in pursuance to the said direction, the documents showing that the suit land has been acquired by the Government as per declaration dated 31.10.1964 and Notification dated 21.11.1964 along with the sketch map is annexed herewith as Annexure-A/2. 7. That after the land has been acquired by the Government; it was handed over to the Industries Department and the Sabik ROR relating to the suit land which was published in the year 1995 bearing Khata No.604, Plot No.1814 and 1815, extent Ac.0.620 decimal is annexed herewith as Annexure-B/2. 8. That it is humbly submitted that apart from the same the R.O.R. which was published in the year 2014, the suit land is also recorded in favour of Industries Department bearing Khata No.877, Plot No.3159, extent Ac.0.290 decimal and Plot No.3160, extent Ac.0.330 decimal, total extent Ac.0.620 decimal. Copy of the R.O.R. of the year 2014 is annexed herewith as Annexure-C/2.” 7. From the documents appended along with the affidavit at the instance of the opposite party Nos.1 & 2, this Court finds, vide Annexure-A/2 there is a notification dated 31st October, 1964 indicating the acquisition of the land in the particular area having particular boundaries therein. Sketch map appended thereto clearly reveals that the claim plot comes within the acquisition notification. Further records appended therein also reveal that the disputed land has been recorded in the name of Industries Department and the R.O.R. has been published vide Annexure-C/2. It appears, the R.O.R. has never been challenged. For the developments through the notification and for the publication of the R.O.R. of the disputed property, there remain no doubt that the land presently stands clearly establishing a different ownership in favour of the Industry Department and for no challenge to the developments taken place involving the disputed property, it appears that the petitioner has no sustainable claim. 8. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and for the observations made in the impugned order and for the developments indicated hereinabove, this Court finds, there is no infirmity in the impugned orders and as such there is no case made out for correction of the R.O.R by the petitioner. Under the circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. However, there is no order as to cost.