LAWS(ORI)-2003-11-4

NARAYAN NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On November 03, 2003
NARAYAN NAYAK Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Narayan Nayak has brought the aforesaid writ petitions seeking quashment of orders vide Annexures 4, 5 and 6 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Nimapara (Opposite party No, 4), Deputy Director, Consolidation, Range 1, Bhubaneswar (Opposite party No. 3) and Commissioner of Consolidation, Bhubaneswar (Opposite party No. 2), respectively, rejecting his claim for recording the disputed land in his favour basing on Registered Sale Deeds No. 1540 dated 10.3.1967 and 1931 dated 9.5.1970 by virtue of which he had purchased the said land from recorded owners. Since all the writ petitions involve similar questions of fact and law, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) FOR purpose of adjudication of these writ petitions together, relevant facts of the case are briefly set forth as below : One late Ratan Nayak had four sons, namely, Bhikari, Giridhari, Daitari and Birabhadra, of whom Bhikari died in 1952 prior to which his only son Chintamani passed away in 1951 for which Gelly being his only daughter succeeded to his property, particularly when his only son Chintamani left no issue while breathing his last; while Giridhari expired leaving behind him, his three sons, Narendra, Gajendra and Surendra of whom Narendra died leaving behind his son Purna Chandra (Opposite party No. 5); Gajendra died leaving behind him, his son Uma Charan (opposite party No. 6) and Surendra died issueless whereas Daitari died leaving behind him, his two sons, Dinabandhu and Bauribandhu of whom the former died leaving behind his adopted son Gangadhar (opposite party No. 7) and latter died leaving behind his widow Kuntala (opposite party No. 8) and Birabhadra died long back in or about 1980 leaving behind him, his two sons, namely, Subala (opposite party No. 10) and Narayan, present petitioner, who has brought all the writ petitions above mentioned.

(3.) NONE of the opposite parties filed counter affidavit to the writ petitions brought by present petitioner before this Court but, however, the fact that the disputed land is self acquired property of Bhikari has been denied by the opposite parties, who in turn claimed the said land to be their joint family property which was of course recorded in the name of Bhikari because of being Karta of their family.