Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 228 (ORI)

Kailash Magoo v. State of Orissa

2019-03-20

A.K.RATH

body2019
JUDGMENT : A.K.RATH, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, for a direction to the opposite party no.1 to produce the trace map of the plot for disposal of the mutation case. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case are that one Dibakar Rana was a landless person. By order dated 23.7.1979, the Tahasildar, Panposh in Lease Case No.4 of 1979-80 leased out an area of Ac.2.00 dec. appertaining to Khata No.204, Plot No.820/1 of village-Garjan in his favour subject to payment of forest royalty. There was a condition that the lessee shall not transfer the land within ten years. Patta was issued in his favour, vide Annexure2. Kissam of the land is Goda. While matter stood thus, to press the legal necessity, the lessee alienated the land in favour of the petitioner by means of a registered sale deed dated 17.5.1995 for a valid consideration and delivered possession. Thereafter, she filed Mutation Case No.349 of 1995 before the Tahasildar to mutate the land in her favour. By order dated 11.7.1995, the Tahasildar directed the R.I to furnish the report. The R.I had submitted a report on 16.8.1995 in her favour. On 8.9.2000, the Tahasildar dropped the case holding that the kissam of the land is 'patra jungle'. Thereafter, she filed another Mutation Case No.319 of 2007 before the Tahasildar renewing the prayer. The Tahasildar dismissed the case holding that the suit land stood recorded in Abad Jogya Anabadi Khata No.204, Plot No.820 of village-Garjan. Kissam of the land has been changed from 'forest' to 'patita'. It is not clear which part of the plot, the petitioner had purchased out of total area in khata no.204, plot no.820 of village-Garjan. Felt aggrieved, the petitioner filed Revenue Appeal Case No.23 of 2007 before the Sub-Collector, Panposh, Rourkela, opposite party no.3. Opposite party no.3 remanded the matter to the Tahasildar for de novo hearing with a direction to the petitioner to produce the trace map. The grievance of the petitioner is that she is a bona fide purchaser for value. She filed mutation case in the year 1995. Till yet the same has not been disposed of. She is running from pillar to post. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that she is a bona fide purchaser for value. She filed mutation case in the year 1995. Till yet the same has not been disposed of. She is running from pillar to post. 3. Opposite parties 2 to 4 filed a counter affidavit pleading, inter alia, that by order dated 13.8.1979, the Tahasildar in Lease Case No.4 of 1979-80 leased out an area of Ac.2.00 dec. of land appertaining to plot no.820 holding no.204 of village-Garjan in favour of Dibakar Rana. In Touzi Misc. Case No.20 of 1995, the petitioner was given Ac.7.35 out of same plot no.820 for quarry along with other two plots of the same village. A direction was issued to the R.I, Kalunga to submit a report. Though the petitioner had stated that the R.I had submitted a report on 16.8.1995, but the date had been over-written. There was no initial of the Tahasildar. The kissam of the land is 'patra jungle'. The Tahasildar dropped the mutation case. In De-reservation Proceeding No.1 of 1986, the kissam of the land was changed to 'patita' in the year 2004. The petitioner filed Mutation Case No.319 of 2007. On 16.6.2007, R.I, Kalunga submitted the report stating that there was no trace map of the purchased area to ascertain which portion of the plot was purchased by the petitioner. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner could not be considered. Since the petitioner had purchased a fraction of plot no.820, it was incumbent upon her to get a trace map of the land purchased from the seller. The Sub-Collector remanded matter to the Tahasildar for de novo hearing. The petitioner had not complied with the direction of the appellate authority. The villagers of Garjan as well as Garjan Grama Panchayat had vehemently objected to the operation of the stone quarry of the petitioner besides three other quarries of the same village till 1.8.2012. It was proposed to close operation of four quarries. The case had been protracted due to non-production of trace map. 4. Heard Mr. Aswini Patnaik along with Mr. B. Baisakh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Samapika Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. 5. Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in Lease Case No.4 of 1979-80, the Tahasildar leased out an area of Ac.2.00 dec. 4. Heard Mr. Aswini Patnaik along with Mr. B. Baisakh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Samapika Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. 5. Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in Lease Case No.4 of 1979-80, the Tahasildar leased out an area of Ac.2.00 dec. appertaining to Khata No.204, Plot No.820/1 of village-Garjan in favour of Dibakar Rana. Dibakar Rana sold the land to the petitioner by means of a registered sale deed dated 17.5.1995 for a valid consideration and thereafter delivered possession. She is a bona fide purchaser for value. She had filed Mutation Case No.349 of 1995 before the Tahasildar to mutate the land in her favour. Though R.I submitted the report, but then the Tahasildar, without taking into consideration the report of the R.I, dropped the case. Thereafter, she filed Mutation Case No.319 of 2007. The mutation case was dropped on unsupportable and untenable grounds. She filed Revenue Appeal Case No.23 of 2007 before the Sub-Collector, Panposh, Rourkela, opposite party no.3. Without considering the matter in its proper perspective, opposite party no.3 remanded the matter to the Tahasildar for de novo hearing and directed her to produce the trace map. The Tahasildar failed to consider the report of the R.I. dated 16.8.1995. The Sub-Collector could have sought for the trace map from the General Administrative Department. The later report of the R.I is contrary to the earlier report. 6. Per contra, Ms. Mishra, learned ASC submitted that plot no.820 is a vast plot. Ac.2.00 dec. of land was leased out to Dibakar Rana. There is no trace map of the area. Dibakar Rana sold the suit land to the petitioner. She is operating the stone quarry in the adjacent plots. If the trace map is not produced, it will not be possible on the part of the Tahasildar to mutate the land in her favour. 7. In Lease Case No.4 of 1979-80, the Tahasildar, Panposh leased out an area of Ac.2.00 dec. appertaining to Khata No.204, Plot No.820/1 of village-Garjan in favour of Dibakar Rana, since he was a landless person. Patta was issued to him. There was a stipulation in the patta that he will not alienate the land within ten years. While matter stood thus, lessee sold the land to the petitioner by means of a registered sale deed dated 17.5.1995 for a valid consideration and thereafter delivered possession. Patta was issued to him. There was a stipulation in the patta that he will not alienate the land within ten years. While matter stood thus, lessee sold the land to the petitioner by means of a registered sale deed dated 17.5.1995 for a valid consideration and thereafter delivered possession. She is a bona fide purchase for value. The lease subsists. There is no rhyme or reason to protract the litigation from 1995 till yet. 8. The petitioner has been caught between scylla and charybdis. The Sub-Collector, Panposh, Rourkela, opposite party no.3, could have called for the trace map from the concerned office. In the absence of trace map, the Tahasildar, Panposh could have directed for demarcation of the lease area and dispose of the mutation case. 9. In view of the foregoing discussions, the writ petition is allowed. The Tahasildar, Panposh shall dispose of the mutation case on the available materials on record. It is open to the Tahasildar to call for the trace map. In the event the same is not available, the Tahasildar may depute an Amin to demarcate the land and proceed accordingly. The entire exercise shall be completed within six months.