KRUSHNA PRIYA PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DATE of hearing: 05.09.2013 | Date of judgment : 18.09.2013 The petitioner in this writ application seeks to quash the order dated 31.1.1994 passed by the Revenue Officer cum Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in Suo motu Bebondabasta Case No. 65 of 1991 under Annexure 5, where he was inclined to settle the land in favour of Lord Lingaraj Mahaprabhu Bije, Bhubaneswar Marfat Trust Board, as occupancy rights with effect from the date of vesting, i.e. 18.3.1974 with rent, cess etc. in respect of the land mentioned in the land schedule and the tenant will continue as such till the rendering of service to the deity and further directed the Executive Officer, Lord Lingaraj Mahaprabhu Bije, Bhubaneswar to deposit the arrear amount, back rent, cess and salami after appeal period is over.

(2.) THE fact of the case is that Sabik Khata Nos. 1614, 1615 and 1616 of mouza Bhubaneswar were recorded in the name of Jagatmohan Praharaj and others with specific shares on Chirathayee Tanki Madhyasatwadhikari status under the Zamindar Lord Lingaraj Mahaprabhu under Khewat No.1. Accordingly, the Praharaj family were paying rent to the Zamindar. In an amicable partition by metes and bounds among the co sharers of the family, the share of Brajamohan and his widow Padmabati was gifted to the petitioner vide registered deed dated 29.9.1973 and thereafter, she is in possession of the land mentioned in the Schedule and she became the rightful owner. The petitioner being a lady was ignorant of the consequences of vesting and settlement of the land under Section 7 of the O.E.A. Act and for that reason, the record of rights published in the year 1989, her lands were recorded in Khata No. 632 of mouza Bhubaneswar Sahar Unit 34, under Bebandobasta status. The additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar initiated a suo motu bebandobasta case as per the executive instruction of the Government against the petitioner over Khata No. 632 and with least reference to the Sabik R.O.R. under misconception of law and facts, he treated the land belonging to the Lord Lingaraj Mahaprabhu Bije, Bhubaneswar with Madhyasatwadhikari interest, though Lord Lingaraj was the proprietor having no interest in the land excepting collecting rent. He could not have also treated the case land as the Niz Dakhal land of the proprietor, passed orders on dated 31.1.1995 to change the name of the petitioner recorded as tenants and substituting Lord Lingaraj in her place, thereby he inducted a third story with a wind fall gain to Lord Lingaraj, specially when it nobody's case nor there is any document to support in respect of the case land.

(3.) LORD Lingaraj Mahaprabhu Bije, Bhubaneswar contested the appeal and submitted that the case land originally belongs to him. As per 1962 R.O.R. it was Lakhraj Bahal Debottar land, which was exclusively used for the benefit of the deity having note of the "Seva" condition and as such, the vendors of the petitioner was enjoying the case land in lieu of their personal services with Lord Lingaraj. Such personal service shall not be discharged at the time of the vesting of estate in view of the proviso to Section 8(3) of the O.E.A. Act. The vendor of the petitioner was otherwise known as Chirathayee Tanki Madhyasatwadhikari and primarily enjoying the land free of rent or that rent for personal service to the deity. The disputed land is burdened with service and the same was granted for support of the religious institution and so, the same cannot be settled in favour of the vendor of the petitioner exclusively, but can be settled in favour of Lord Lingaraj with the note of personal service condition of the vendor. He has also submitted that the gift to the petitioner is violative under Section 19 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act. Accordingly, prayer was made to reject the appeal by relying upon the order of the Government in Revenue Department dated 14.3.1991 in Annexure 4 and 11.1.1995 and paragraph 311 of Settlement Report of S.L.Madax I.C.S.