STATE OF ORISSA Vs. LAXMI NARAYAN DAS (DEAD)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated October 30, 2009 passed by the Orissa High Court in Writ Appeal No. 108/2009 is under challenge in the present appeal. Vide aforesaid order, the order passed by the Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 9069 of 2008 dtd. 21/11/2008, was reversed.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case available on record are that a writ petition was filed by Laxmi Narayan Das (dead) through LRs, Satynarayan Das, Birenchi Narayan Das (respondents herein) on 27/6/2008 challenging the order passed by the Settlement Officer in Settlement Appeal No. 537/90 dtd. 1/3/1990. The writ petition was filed more than 18 years after the impugned order was passed. The grievance raised was that the objections filed by the writ petitioners during the course of settlement were not considered by the authority concerned and the land was recorded in the name of General Administration Department (GAD). Liberty was granted to the writ petitioners to file representation to the GAD. The grievance was that the representation was filed, however, the same has not been decided. The stand of the learned counsel for the State was also recorded that when final record of rights was published, it was open to the writ petitioners to file appropriate revision application under Sec. 15(b) of the Orissa Survey & Settlement Act, 1958 (for short, 'the 1958 Act').

(3.) Learned counsel for the State submitted that the record of rights in the case in hand was finalised way back in the year 1962. The land at that time was not in occupation of anyone rather wild bushes were existing on the land. No objection was raised by the land owners. The appeal was filed in the year 1990, which was disposed of on 1/3/1990. Since it was claimed that the land was stitiban plot, it was observed that claim could be raised with the GAD. Accordingly, the entry in the name of the appellant was not possible. After passing of the aforesaid order, the respondents kept quiet. A civil suit came to be filed in the year 2003 for declaration. It was pleaded therein that 0.601 decimal of the land was in possession of the Reserve Bank of India (for short, 'RBI') where the staff quarters had been constructed. It was on account of the allotment thereof by the GAD. However, finally the relief sought in the suit was that the plaintiffs therein who are the respondents herein, had become the owners by way of adverse possession of the land, as mentioned in Schedule 'B' attached to the Suit and further a declaration was sought that they are owners in possession of the land as mentioned in the Schedule 'A' and their possession needs to be protected. This included the land which was admittedly allotted to the Reserve Bank of India and on which staff quarters had already been constructed. The aforesaid suit was dismissed as withdrawn by the respondents on 28/7/2007. Permission was sought to file a fresh suit. However, the same was specifically declined by the court.