BIPIN BIHARI HAZIRA Vs. TAHASILDAR, CHANDABALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by way of this writ petition, seeks to quash the order dtd. 3/3/2017 passed in Khashmahal Case No. 01 of 2016 under Annexure-4, by which the Tahasildar, Chandabali has dropped the said case by recording that as the case land has been transferred to A.J.A. (Abad Jogya Anabadi) Khata for inability of parties to produce relevant document, it cannot be settled.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the land in question situated in Chandabali village under khata no.127, plot no.517, measuring an area Ac.0.13 decimals and plot no.516 measuring an area Ac. 0.04 dec. totalling an area of Ac. 0.17 dec. was under the possession of the grandfather of the present opposite party nos. 2 to 5, namely, Late Hari Hazira. The possession over the case land by Hari Hazira stands reflected in the Khasmahal register. After the death of Hari Hazira, his son Late Bichitra Nanda Hazira, who is the father of present opposite party nos. 2 to 5, was in continuous and uninterrupted possession over the said land. During his life time, the father of present opposite party nos. 2 to 5 had constructed a residential house consisting of 17 rooms, out of which 6 rooms had been used by him and his family members and the rest rooms had been let out to different persons. The father of opposite party nos. 2 to 5, being a landless person, had been maintaining himself and his family members from out of the rent collected from the tenants, as he had no other source of income excepting that. After the death of the father of the present opposite party nos. 2 to 5, opposite party nos. 2 to 5 inherited the possession by way of succession over the case land, as it was possessed by their father, which had been duly verified and enquired by the Revenue Inspector, Chandabali. The case of the petitioner is that the land in question should have been settled in his favour, as the same is a Khasmahal land, which was in occupation of his grand-father, namely, Late Hari Hazira. But, as the petitioner could not produce any documents before the authority and the land was transferred to A.J.A. Khata for inability of parties to produce relevant document, the land could not be settled and the proceeding so initiated was dropped. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Mr. S.S.K. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has a right to claim the benefit as the land in question, i.e., sabik plot no.589 measuring an area of Ac. 0.13 decimal, plot no. 590 measuring an area of Ac. 0.2 decimal, plot no. 591 measuring an area of Ac. 0.2 dec., i.e., in total Ac. 0.17 dec. under sabik khata no. 40 of Mouza Chandabali in the district of Bhadrak, is a Khasmahal land and it was leased out by the Tahasildar in the name of Khetrabasi Sahoo and said Khetrabasi Sahoo sold the said land to one Hari Hazira, who was the common ancestor of the petitioner and opposite parties 2 to 5 through R.S.D. No. 531 dtd. 12/7/1993. By virtue of amicable arrangement between Shakidutta Khan, Bhallava Nath, Hari Hazira, Giridhari Majhi, the said sabik plot was possessed by Hari Hazira. After death of Hari Hazira, his son Padmanava Hazira (father of the present petitioner) inherited the said sabik plot. Similarly, after death of Padmanava Hazira, Bichitra Hazira and Bipinbihari Hazira inherited the said sabik plot. Now Bichitra Hazira is dead. Bipinbihari Hazira and the legal heirs of Bichitra Hazira who are the present opposite parties 2 to 5 are in possession over the said Sabik land. During the Hal settlement operation the above Sabik plots became Hal plot nos. 517 and 516 under Hal Khata No.127. But that Hal plots wrongly recorded under 'Abad Jogya Anabadi' khata, though the name of Hari Hazira, who was common ancestor of petitioner and opposite party nos. 2 to 5, has been recorded in the remark columns and Kisam of land has been recorded as Gharabari-1. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application on 17/11/2016, which was registered as Khasmahal Case No.01/2016 for settlement the suit plot in his name and the names of his co-sharers, who are the present opposite parties 2 to 5. But the Tahasildar dropped the said Khasmahal Case on 3/3/2017. Thereby, the Tahasildar has committed gross illegality and irregularity, for which the petitioner has approached in the present writ petition. It is further contended that Sec. -5 B of Orissa Government Land Settlement Act provides that, if any Khasmahal land has been occupied prior to 26/2/2006 and used for homestead purpose, it shall be settled in favour of occupier by the Tahasildar in the manner prescribed in Schedule-V of O.G.L.S. Act. But here the Tahasildar, without going through the above provision, has simply dropped the said Khasmahal case on the ground that the said suit plot has been recorded under A.J.A. Khata. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ petition.