ABDUL GHANI ANSARI Vs. BISWANATH KALO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant, by filing this Appeal under sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code'), has assailed the judgment dtd. 20/8/2011 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional District Judge, Sundargarh in R.F.A. No.13/566 of 2009-11. By the same, the judgment and decree dtd. 6/3/2009 and 19/3/2009 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Sundargarh, in C.S. No.64 of 2006 have been confirmed. This Appellant, as the Plaintiff, had filed the Suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land and confirmation of possession with further prayer to declare the entire proceeding and the decision rendered in Misc. Case No.3 of 1998 by the Officer on Special Duty (Land Reforms), Sundargar arraigned as Defendant No.3 as also the Appeal proceeding and the decisions rendered by the Additional District Magistrate, Sundargarh in R.A. No.49 of 2002.

(2.) For the sake of convenience and clarity as also to avoid confusion; the parties hereinafter have been referred to in the same rank as assigned to them in the original proceeding before the Trial Court. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned counsel for the Respondents at length. The judgments of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have been carefully gone through.

(3.) The Plaintiff's case is that the suit land originally belonged to one Jayadev Kalo, the predecessor-in-interest of Defendant Nos.1 and 2. It is his case that said Jayadev Kalo, during his life time, had sold the land to two persons, namely, Harun Nag and Abdul Gony Ansari on 5/3/1955. Said Harun Nag had purchased the suit land measuring Ac.0.06 decimals from Jayadev Kalo under unregistered plain paper document for a consideration of Rs.140.00. It is stated that from the date of said purchase, Harun Nag becoming the owner possessed the land in question. Later Harun Nag sold the suit land to the Plaintiff by executing a registered sale deed on 17/5/1961 and accordingly, the Plaintiff possessed the suit land being owner thereof. When the matter stood thus, the Defendant No.3 initiated a proceeding under Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property ( By Scheduled Tribes) Regulations, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "The Regulations 2 of 1956") vide Misc. Case No.3 of 1998 against the Plaintiff and his vendor Harun Nag. The auction was to evict from the suit land and restore the possession of eth said land to the successor-in-interest of Jayadev Kalo. The proceeding finally ended with an order of eviction of the Plaintiff and his vendor Harun Nag followed by an order of restoration of possession of the suit land in favour of the Defendant Nos.1 and 2. The order being passed on 30/11/2002, the Plaintiff carried an Appeal as provided under Regulations 2 of 1956 to the Appellate Authority, i.e, Defendant No.4. The Appeal being numbered as R.A. No.49 of 2002, had finally came to be dismissed. The order passed by the Defendant No.3 stood confirmed. The Plaintiff being aggrieved by the said orders, challenged those by carrying writ petitions before this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.8994 and 8995 of 2005. Those also stood dismissed. The Plaintiff thereafter filed Writ Appeal No.71 of 2005, which was also dismissed on merit by a Division Bench of this court on 19/12/2005. Thus, having failed in all attempts, the Suit was instituted with the reliefs as already stated. The Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in whose favour the orders had been passed by Defendant Nos.3 and 4, contested the Suit by filing their written statement and so also the Authorities acting under the Regulations 2 of 1956, i.e, Defendant Nos.3 and 4 have also filed their written note of submission. The case of the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 is that they are members of Scheduled Tribes community residing in the Schedule Districts. Jayadev Kalo was there predecessor-in-interest. They denied the case of the Plaintiff that Jayadev Kalo had ever sold the suit land to Harun Nag, who is a member of their community. It is their case that the suit land had been erroneously recorded in the name of Harun Nag in the settlement operation, By virtue of erroneous recording, Harun Nag had not acquired any short of interest over the suit land. Since Harun Nag has no interest over the land in question, he had alienable right over the same and the sale of the land in favour of the Plaintiff, according to them is of no value in the eye of law nor the Plaintiff has been clothed with any right, title and interest by virtue of the said sale. It is their case that Misc. Case No.3 of 1998 had been initiated to evict Harun and the Plaintiff alone with another co-purchaser Abdul Gony Ansari from the suit land in exercise of the power under the Regulations 2 of 1956 by Defendant No.3. The proceeding was rightly concluded and final order therein having been passed the same, has stood the test by the Appellate Authority, i.e. Defendant No.4 as also by this Court in original as well as appellate side. It is stated that the Suit is barred by the Regulation 7-E of the Regulations 2 of 1956. The Defendant Nos.3 and 4, reiterating the stand taken by the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have stood in support of the orders passed in Misc. Case No.3 of 1998 as well as Appeal No.49 of 2002. It is stated that all such due procedure as provided in law holding the field have been scrupulously followed and the orders being free from any illegality or infirmity have gone uninterferred in the writ proceeding as well as the appeal carried thereon. It is stated that the Suit is vexatious for no reason but to harass the Defendant Nos.1 and 2, who are the members of the Scheduled Tribe with a bid to deprive them of the fruit of the proceeding under the Regulations 2 of 1956.