RAMESWAR SINGH Vs. TAHASILDAR SADAR SUNDERGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application relates to orders passed by the various statutory authorities in addling proceeding under Chapter -IV of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called the 'O. L. R Act').

(2.) THE disputed property relates to Sabik Khata No. 139 of village Kiralaga in Sundeigarh district. The lands in the aforesaid Khata were recorded in the name of one Mandaraj Rautia, who is admittedly dead since long. The aforesaid Mandaraj Rautia had one son, Tetengu, who is also admittedly dead. Dulari Rautia, widow of Tetengu. Admittedly died in the year 1980. It is not disputed that Tetengu had three daughters, Draupadi, Sunamati and Sahabati. Sunamati and Sahabati are also dead. Dhan Singh, Laxmidhar and Sibasankar are three sons of Sunamati. Sahabati has expired without any progeny. In the year 1989, a ceiling proceeding was initiated against Draupadi, the surviving -daughter of Tetengu, and Dulari. Petitioners 1 to 8 are heirs of one Kundan Rautia. The ceiling proceeding was initiated only against Draupadi Rautia. It appears that initially she had not taken any steps to contest the proceeding. Petitioners 1 to 8 had filed a petition to exclude certain properties from the ceiling area of Draupadi Rautia on the allegation that Kundan Rautia,their common predecessor -in -interest, had purchased the property from Tetengu during life -time. The aforesaid petition having been rejected, subsequently Ceiling Appeal, Case No. 2/93 was filed by Draupadi Rautia and her two daughters. The said appeal was dismissed. Subsequently, a petition purporting to be one under section 60(2) of the O. L R. Act was filed by the present petitioners which has been rejected on the ground of limitation. The previous orders passed by the Ceiling authorities are being challenged by the present petitioners.

(3.) IN course of hearing, it was also contended that some properties had been sold to the predecessor -in -interest of petitioners 1 to 8. Now that the matter is being remanded for fresh determination, petitioners 1 to 8 shall also be given opportunity to establish their claim and if it is proved that Tetengu had sold any property to predecessor -in -interest of petitioners 1 to 8, such property should also be excluded. In course of heating, it was also contended that some property had been gifted by Dulari in favour of her son -in -law Biswanath, father of petitioners 9 to 11. Petitioners 9 to 11 should also be given an opportunity to establish the aforesaid aspect. The present petitioners as well as daughters of Draupadi who is admittedly dead in the meantime, should be given opportunity of hearing and thereafter the matter should be finalised in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Tahsildar on 4th December, 2000. The lower court records shall be sent back.