PURUSOTTAM CHOUDHURY Vs. COMMISSIONER CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application is directed against the decisions rendered by the Consolidation authorities.

(2.) THERE is no dispute that Antaryami Mohapatra and Chintamoni Mohapatra were the landlords and Sadhu Choudhury was the Sikim tenant under them. Hini Choudhury, present opposite party No.4, is the daughter of Sadhu Choudhury. The present petitioner claims that by virtue of the sale deed dated 29.6.1942, Sadhu Choudhury sold his right in favour of the present petitioner and one Sridhar Choudhury and delivered possession and the present petitioner and Sridhar Choudhury continued as tenants. It is further claimed that in a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, relating to a part of the disputed land, compensation was paid to Chintamoni Mohapatra as the landlord and Sridhar and . the petitioner representing the tenancy interest. The present petitioner claims that after the death of Sridhar without any heir, the present petitioner is in possession of the entire disputed land. The petitioner further claims that taking advantage of his absence, the land was recorded in the name of Chintamoni Mohapatra and Antaryami Mohapatra as landlords and Sadhu Choudhury as Sikim raiyat in the record -of -rights of the year 1983.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised several contentions in support of his claim that the right of the petitioner as Sikim tenant should have been recoginsed. He has further submitted that subsequently, the petitioner has purchased the property from Antaryami Mohapatra and as such, the right of Sikim tenant has merged with that of the landlord.