KAILASH CHANDRA NANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , Kailash Chandra Nanda, seeking the following reliefs such as : (i) Issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order under Annexure 2; (ii) Directing the Collector, Khurda, opposite party No. 2 to receive rent for the suit land from the petitioner; and (iii) Issue of a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties not to intervene with his possession and enjoyment of the said land and also to pay him compensation for having suffered harassment and incurred heavy expenses; brought before this Court the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE petitioner's case in the writ petition is that he is the son of one Bengabati Dibya, who since 1942 was in possession of the case land after it was leased out in her favour by the ex intermediary, Chakradhar Mohapatra of Alishabazar, Cuttack, for which she was paying rent and though the ex intermediary issued her 'Hata Patta' dated 17.2.1942 for the said land which was in her physical cultivating possession (Nija Chas), yet it was recorded wrongly as Rakhit 'Abadajogya Anabadi' during the settlement operation in 1974 for which Bengabati Dibya moved a petition under Section 8(1) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act before the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (opposite party No.3), who initiated Misc. Case No. 92 of 1980 and on consideration of the 'Hata Patta' dated 17.2.1942, rent receipts granted by the ex intermediary and above all her physical cultivating possession over the said land, came to hold that the land in question does not come within the purview of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act and thus no settlement under Section 8(1) of the said Act is necessary and that being so he directed to correct the existing entry in the R.O.R. in favour of Bengabati Dibya by his order dated 30.8.1980 vide Annexure 1 which was challenged by opposite party No. 2 in Revision Case No. 22 of 1992 under Section 38 B of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act before the Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa, who in turn set aside the order of the Tahasildar cum O.E.A. Collector, Bhubaneswar (opposite party No. 3) with a direction to correct the finally published R.O.R. incorporating possession of the petitioner over certain extent of land only by his order dated 1.10.1993 which was challenged by Bengabati Dibya by filing a writ petition in O.J.C. No. 8192 of 1992 before this Court who adjudicated the matter holding that the order of opposite party No. 3 having been not passed under the O.E.A. Act, it could not have been corrected by the Member, Board of Revenue and accordingly, while quashing the said order, this Court further observed that the parties may agitate before the competent forum in accordance with law in case the dispute, if any, regarding the claim of tenancy arises in future. Being aggrieved by this order, the Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa and others including the Collector, Puri preferred Special Leave Petition to appeal vide (Civil) No. 3698 of 1998 before the Supreme Court, who ultimately dismissed the same with the observation that the parties may approach the competent forum to get their claim of tenancy or title decided, in case any dispute arises in this regard without being influenced by any of the observations made by the Tahasildar. We quote the order of the Apex Court thus :

(3.) OPPOSITE party No. 1 while denying all the material allegations of fact made in the writ petition by filing his counter affidavit, questioned the maintainability of the said writ petition filed by the petitioner. According to him, opposite party No. 2 under the provisions of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules, 1992 is the appropriate forum and is competent to revise the order passed by the Tahasildar (opposite party No. 3) under Rule 34 of the said Rules. It is further contented by opposite party No. 1 that the order of opposite party No. 3 is without jurisdiction and suffers from material irregularities in procedure and misrepresentation of facts. Only to set aside an irregular order under Annexure 1 passed under Rule 34 of the said Rules, 1992, opposite party No. 1 preferred the Revision before opposite party No. 2, but not to get his title nor tenancy decided in the said revision. His further contention is that the suit land is the land of the Government who is its absolute owner and that being so, opposite party No. 3 dated beyond his jurisdiction by passing order dated 30.8.1980 vide Annexure 1. Above all, opposite party No. 1 questioned the genuineness of the 'Hata Patta' in the absence of supporting documents for which the order of opposite party No. 2 does not call for any interference by this Court.