SOMANATH MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Mohapatra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners. He submits, his clients are heirs of the recorded tenant. He draws attention to annexure 1 being extract of the RoR showing his clients' grandfather as recorded tenant.

(2.) He submits, the OEA Collector-cum-Tahsildar purported to initiate a Bebandobasta case on 9/7/2016. He demonstrates the case was initiated in respect of plot no.2031 being kissam gharabari. Furthermore, the case was registered under Sec. 7/9 of Odisha Estates Abolition Act, 1951 and, inter alia, circulars dtd. 6/12/2000 and 11/1/2016. He submits, sec. 7 is not applicable as it is in respect of land used for agricultural and horticultural purposes. So far as sec. 8 is concerned he submits, it provides continuity of tenure of tenants. He reiterates, his clients' grandfather was the recorded tenant.

(3.) He submits, impugned is order dtd. 30/10/2018 made in the suo motu case. He refers to aforesaid circular dtd. 6/12/2000 to submit, it was for purpose of fixation of rent. He hands up also aforesaid circular dtd. 11/1/2016 to submit, there was made thereby, continuity of said purpose for fixation of rent in respect of land having Bebandobasta status. He points out from impugned order that it was made in respect of plot 2035. Said plot is under his clients' possession and occupation. He submits, parallely there was mutation case and in it, in respect of plot 2031 recorded in name of the grandfather, his clients came to be recorded in respect of renumbered plot 2035. The only thing that could be done was fixation of fair and equitable rent but by impugned order, there was direction to record case land under the Abada Jogya Anabadi Khata and initiate encroachment case against his clients. He submits, there be interference.