PABANI BARIK Vs. BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the opposite parties restraining them from evicting him from the disputed land and raising any construction thereon.

(2.) CASE of the petitioner is that the disputed land measuring an area of Ac. 7.500 decimals appertaining to plot No. 258 (Sabik Plot No. 216) under Khata No. 619 (Sabik Khata No. 303) in mouza Chandrasekharpur originally belonged to the estate of Kanika. On 15.6.1941, the Raja of Kanika settled it in favour of the father of the petitioner by creating occupancy right. This fact was recorded in Jamabandi Khatian of Kanika Raja. After abolition of estate, the intermediary instead of the Raja vested in the State Government. The Raja submitted tenants' ledger (Ekpadia) in the office of the Tahsildar, Cuttack wherein the name of the father of the petitioner came to be mentioned at SI. No. 343. After the death of his father, the petitioner inherited occupancy right over the disputed land and became the rightful owner thereof. In the year 1972, mouza Chandrasekharpur in which the disputed land is located was transferred to Bhubaneswar Tahsil. The settlement authorities erroneously recorded the disputed land as 'rakshit' despite the fact that the petitioner and his deceased father have been in possession of the same. Being aggrieved by such wrong entry, the petitioner filed Mutation Case No. 175 of 1989 before the Tahsildar, Bhubaneswar. The Additional Tahsildar by his order dated 25.1.1993 directed to mutate the petitioner's name. The Tahsildar, Bhubaneswar filed Mutation Appeal No. 12 of 1995 before the Sub -Collector. Bhubaneswar challenging the validity of the order dated 25.1.1993 of the Additional Tahsildar. The Sub -Collector disposed of the appeal on 31.7.1999 observing that since a Civil Suit (T.S.No. 324 of 1996) is pending between the parties, it is open for them to establish their claims. Subsequently, the Collector, Khurda intimated a suo motu revision (Suo Motu Revision No. 1 of 1999) in respect of the order of the Additional Tahsildar passed in Mutation Case No. 175 of 1989. The petitioner thereafter filed writ petition bearing O.J.C. No. 4741 of 2000 challenging the initiation of the suo motu revision case. This Court by order dated 12.7.2000 disposed of the writ petition observing that since the dispute between the parties is pending before the Civil Court, there is no need to continue the suo motu revision case. While the matter stood thus, the opposite parties on 13.1 1.1999 came to the disputed land and started measuring it. On 21.5.2001. they demolished a portion of the compound wall. In these circumstances, finding no other alternative, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) SHRI Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner is in possession of the disputed land is evident from the order of the Additional Tahsildar dated 25.1.1993 by which he has directed mutation of the land in his favour and the two suits, namely, T.S. No. 324 of 1996 and T.S. No. 688 of 1999 filed by the petitioner in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division). Bhubaneswar are pending and in these circumstances, the opposite parties should be asked not to dispossess him from the disputed land till he moves the Civil Court for necessary interim relief. Shri Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties, on the other hand contended that the petitioner has no semblance of right inasmuch as the owner of the disputed land is the State Government which has leased out the same to the B.D.A. for public purpose, i.e., for construction of housing apartments which is a part and parcel of the Social Housing Project. He submitted that in public interest, the interim order granted by this Court should be vacated.