DIGAMBAR MOHANTA Vs. STATE & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner seeks for quashing of the order dated 21.06.2010 passed by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Cuttack (R.D.C.), opposite party no. 1 in R.P. No. 49 of 2009 under Annexure -5. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the land appertaining to Plot No. 117 measuring an area of Ac. 0.06 decimals and Plot No. 113/405 for an area of Ac. 0.12 decimals under Hal Khata No. 28 of Mouza -Anlabani is his exclusive property and that the said plots were recorded exclusively in his name, respondent Nos. 3 and 4, after lapse of about 28 years, filed an application before the R.D.C. for correction of the Record -of -Rights and to record the land jointly in the name of the petitioner and the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4.

(2.) IT is contended by the petitioner that an application for correction of R.O.R. after lapse of 28 years should not have been entertained by the R.D.C. It is further contended that an application for correction of R.O.R. can be filed within a period of one year from the date of final publication of R.O.R. but the learned R.D.C. entertained the said application of opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 having condoned the long delay of 28 years on a flimsy ground that opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 are ignorant of law. Opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 have filed separate counter affidavit justifying the impugned order asserting that their names, along with the name of the petitioner, should have been jointly recorded in the R.O.R.

(3.) IN the case of Rasananda Rout -Vrs. -Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement, Orissa and others, : 2001 (II) OLR 163, the Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement, Orissa, Bhubaneswar had rejected the revision petition under Section - 15(b) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958. In the revision petition, the petitioners had claimed title over the disputed property. Observing that since the question of title was involved for which disputed questions of fact were likely to arise, this Court observed that it was more appropriate to direct the petitioner to file a suit for establishing his title. Also in the case at hand, the revision petitioners have demanded joint recording of R.O.R. claiming that along with the writ petitioner they have also got title in the disputed land. Impugned order reflects that the claim of title made by the opposite parties before the Commissioner of settlement has been disputed by the writ petitioner. He claims exclusive title over the disputed land. Under such circumstances, the settlement authority cannot go into disputed facts on title. Approaching the civil court would be the appropriate step.