BASANTA KUMAR SAHOO Vs. THE STATE OF ORISSA, REPRESENTED THROUGH SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE factual and legal controversies being common these three writ applications were heard analogous and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) ONE Krushna Chandra, Petitioner in "OJC No. 2139 of 1987 (since dead and substituted by his legal heirs) and his two sons, Basanta Kumar and Hemanta Kumar, Petitioners in OJC Nos. 2138 of 1987 and 3844 of 1988 respectively, filed returns under Section 6(1) of the Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short 'the Act'). Two other returns were filed by Urmila and Pramila, both daughters of Krushna Chandra. The competent authority (opp. Party No. 3) disposed of the returns filed by the daughters holding that they had no right over the property in respect of which the returns Were filed. The ceiling cases in respect of the other returns were heard analogous and identical orders were passed in each of them. After allowing certain exemptions and exclusions, three ceiling limits including built up areas with residential units for retention were calculated to be Ac. 1.485, and the area to be surrounded was determined to be Ac. 2,666. He also directed that the petition filed under Section 20 of the Act was to be forwarded to the Government in Housing and Urban Development Department (opp, party No. 1). The adjudication was challenged in appeal before the Member, Board of Revenue (opp. Party No. 2), who affirmed the orders passed by the competent authority. I he legality and propriety of the orders passed by the competent authority and the appellate authority is impugned in the present writ applications. Even though several grounds were indicated in the writ applications and were initially urged during the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners restricted the challenge to the following grounds:

(3.) WE shall first deal with the contention relating to non -consideration of the hal 'record -of -rights. In substance the argument of the Petitioners is that they were in possession of lesser area of land and that to reflected by the hal record -of -rights. According to them, possession is the yardstick and without enquiry as to the actual extent over which the Petitioners had possession the determination with reference to the sabik record -of -rights was illegal. We find that Section 2(1) is the answer to the proposition raised by the Petitioners. Statutorily it is provided that determination has to be made with reference to area held, which means to own such land or to possess such land as owner or as tenant or as mortgagee of under an irrevocable power of attorney or under a hire purchase agreement of partly in one of the said capacities and partly in any other of the slid capacity or capacities. If on enquiry it is held that a returnee 'holds' or 'owns' land, merely because he may possess it lesser extent, would not entitle him to claim the determination is to be made only in respect of the are claimed to be possessed by him. If such a view is taken, it would lead to unholy attempt being made to show that possession was less, though in law it was for a higher area.