PRATIVA PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this Writ Petition question the legality of the order passed by the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar dated 22.6.2010 under Annexure-7.

(2.) The petitioner are the legal heirs of late Ladukishore Pradhan. The said Ladukishore was serving in Indian Army. During his life time, he submitted an application before the Tahsildar - opposite party No.3 for allotment of Ac.5.000 decimals of agricultural land under the Government Grants Act, 1895 and in terms of the Revenue Department letter No.29827 dated 25.6.1990. The then Tahasildar registered the application as W.L. Lease Case Nos.167 and 474 of 1966-67. After due enquiry and following the due procedure an area of Ac.2.650 decimals was sanctioned in his favour from Sabik Plot No.784 under Khata No.245 of Mouza - Sampur for settlement. Earlier also an area of Ac.2.350 decimals of land was sanctioned in favour of said Ladukishore from Sabik Plot No.75/2007 under Khata No.666 (575/134) of Mouza - Patrapada by the same Tahasildar vide order dated 13.5.1967 in W.L. Lease Case No.474 of 1966-67 making it a total of Ac.5.000 decimals of land. Though after such settlement 'patta' had not been issued in favour of late Ladukishore, after receipt of the eligibility certificate in August, 1970 from the Collector, Puri, 'patta' in respect of land at Sampur was issued in his favour. In respect of the land at Mouza - Patrapada 'patta' was also issued after verification of the eligibility certificate. Late Ladukishore remained in possession of both the plots and paid land revenue from time to time. At the relevant time late Ladukishore was working at Sunebada in the district of Koraput and also after retirement stayed at Semiliguda. During Consolidation operation late Ladukishore was serving at Sunebeda and could not take steps before the Consolidation authorities, as a result of which the land at Patrapada extending to an area of Ac.2.350 decimals was recorded in favour of State Government as 'Patita' Plot No.321 under Khata No,780. The final record of rights was also published in the year 1983-84 indicating the State Government as the owner of the said property. The petitioners, who are the legal heirs of Late Ladukishore came to know about the above wrong recording by the Consolidation authorities in January, 2006 and filed a revision petition before the learned Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement, Orissa, Bhubaneswar under Section 37(1) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972, which was registered as Consolidation Revision Case No.7 of 2007. The learned Commissioner disposed of the revision on 26.7.2007 directing the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to check the relevant papers, conduct due enquiry inviting the parties, examine all relevant original documents and decide the matter as per law. In compliance of the said order passed by the learned Commissioner, the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in the impugned order held that he has no jurisdiction to effect any mutation in corresponding Sabik and Hal Record of Rights. The said order is the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition.

(3.) Undisputedly Ac.2.350 decimals of land were settled in favour of late Ladukishore Pradhan by the then Tahasildar in W.L. Lease Case No.474 of 1966-67 on the basis of the recommendation of the Home Department as late Ladukishore was a Jawan and was entitled to such settlement under the Government Grants Act, 1895. After remand by the learned Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement, field verification was made by the Revenue Inspector, Patrapada and his report reveals that Hal Plot No.321 corresponds to Sabik Plot No.75 of 2007 and Sabik Khata No.575/108. The petitioners also found to be in possession with a stone boundary. On further verification of records, it was found that the kissam of the land in Sabik Plot No.75 was 'Kanta Jungle' and therefore, alienation of such land is prohibited under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Orissa Communal Forest and Private Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1948. Therefore, the Addl.Tahasildar in the impugned order held that such alienation of land having been made in favour of late Ladukishore Pradhan in contravention of the aforesaid provision, the same is void and accordingly mutation is not permissible.