NALINIPRAVA LENKA Vs. COLLECTOR, JAJPUR AND FOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Government Advocate for opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 and the learned Counsel for opposite party No. 5 and dispose of this matter at the stage of preliminary hearing after hearing them on merits.

(2.) The correctness of the order dated 4.1.2010 passed by the Sub-Collector, Jajpur in Misc. Appeal No. 20 of 2008 declining to set aside the residential certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Darpan in favour of opposite party No. 5 is questioned in this writ petition urging various legal contentions particularly placing reliance upon the Voters List Annexure-4 at page 21 wherein at sl. No. 23 the name is mentioned as Arati Sahoo instead of Arati Swain. He has also placed reliance upon the earlier order dated 24.8.2007 of the Tahasildar, Darpan wherein the residential certificate issued in favour of opposite party No. 5 on 17.8.2007 was set aside by the Tahasildar for the reasons recorded therein. Again she filed an application for residential certificate which was registered as Misc. Case No. 9083 of 2008 and she obtained the certificate on 24.10.2008. Therefore, the impugned order is vitiated in law and the finding recorded by the Sub-Collector is without examining the relevant material facts which were required to be considered by him. Therefore, the impugned order is erroneous in law and liable to be quashed. Learned Counsel has also placed reliance upon the meaning of 'residence' as given in the book Words and Phrases' written by Justice R.P. Sethi, former Judge, Supreme Court of India according to which "residence" does not mean a temporary residence for the purpose of obtaining a divorce but habitual residence or residence which is intended to be permanent for future as well. This interpretation was given by the Supreme Court in the case of Narasimha Rao v. Venkata Lakshmi, 1991 3 SCC 451.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 5 sought to justify the correctness of the order placing reliance on the documents produced by the Petitioner himself. He also sought to justify the finding on contentious issue, namely, issuance of residence certificate in Form III by the Tahasildar is on the basis of the report of the Revenue Inspector. Therefore, the same is based on material evidence and further the fact that she has purchased property on 15.10.2007 and has got conversion patta from agricultural land to non-agricultural land which is reflected in the report of the R.I. Therefore, the issuance of the certificate is held to be legal and valid.