SARAT CHANDRA PARIDA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners have filed the instant writ petition invoking under Article(s) 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 challenging the impugned order dtd. 9/3/2004 passed in O.E.A. Appeal No.6 of 2003 (Annexure-3) by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Dhenkanal (O.P.No.2) on the grounds inter alia that the jurisdiction was wrongly exercised and therefore, it is not tenable in law and thus, liable to be interfered with.

(2.) The Petitioners contention is that by virtue of an executive instruction of the Government dtd. 6/12/2012 (Annexure-1), the land in question which had vested and recorded as bebandobast, was settled in their favour by order dtd. 14/8/2001 of O.P.No.3 which was appealable to the Sub-Collector but, O.P.No.2 erroneously entertained an appeal in terms Sec. 9 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the OEA Act') and then, passed the impugned order under Annexure-3 which is, therefore, untenable in law.

(3.) It is pleaded that the subject in question stood recorded under Khata No.8 measuring Ac.13.15 dec. in Sabik ROR as debottar bahel interest of O.P.No.4 which corresponds to Hal Khata No.199 with an area of Ac.12.77 dec. which was, however, subsequently recorded in the name of O.P.No.4 in bebandobast status. The Petitioners claimed to be in cultivating possession of the case land on payment of rent to O.P.No.4 prior to the merger of princely State with State of Orissa, inasmuch as, intermediary interest was vested in 1972 and since the subject was not in khas possession, O.P.No.4 did not apply for statutory settlement in terms of Sec. 8-A of the O.E.A. Act and hence, was recorded in bebandobast status. It is the further case of the Petitioners that the State Government in order to convert bebandobast lands for use released the executive instruction under (Annexure-1) with a provision to initiate suo motu lease proceeding to settle it in favour of persons in actual cultivating possession since the date of vesting on realization of salami and payment of back rents and in case of rejection of any one's claim, appeal within thirty days to lie before the Sub-Collector. In so far as the present case is concerned, O.P.No.2 entertained the appeal under Sec. 9 of the OEA Act which has been challenged by the Petitioners on the ground that it should have been before the Sub-Collector as per Annexure-1 but then, such a preliminary objection was rejected.