SRI NARAYAN MOHARANA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ application, the petitioner assails the order passed by opposite party No. 4 in Civil Revision No. 21 of 2001, which, according to the petitioner, is contrary to the position of law as settled in A.I.R. 1967 Orissa 196.

(2.) The brief facts as delineated in the writ application tend to reveal that the petitioner is the owner of the property described in Khata No. 1810, Plot No. 2326, Area Ac. 0.405 decimals, Holding No. 215 and is stated to have been in continuous possession of the suit building over the said plot since 1967, immediately before vesting of the suit land and building in the State by virtue of Government notification by which all the Trust Estates vested in the State on 18.6.1974. The suit land is a part of the Trust Estate of opposite party No. 2 and prior to the vesting since the petitioner was in possession of the suit land, according to the petitioner, the said land should have been settled by the State and not by any statutory authority be it Tahasildar or A.D.M. According to the petitioner, he got the suit land on transfers in a proceeding under Section 19 of the O.H.R.E. Act with the statutory permission of the Commissioner of Endowment, Orissa in O.P.P. Case No. 663 of 1967 decided in 10.10.1969 and the said plot was mutated in his favour by the Municipal authority and he has been paying the municipal taxes. Subsequently opposite party No. 2 alleged that the said transfer was fraudulent one and in O.E.A. Case No. 167 of 1977 (T), opposite party No. 2 got the said land settled in its favour by virtue of an order passed by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in a proceeding under Sections 6 and 7 of the O.E.A. Act 1951, in which, according to the petitioner, he was never a party. The petitioner came to know about such order from a proceeding initiated under Section 25 of the O.H.R.E. Act being registered as O.A. No. 86 of 1981. According to the petitioner, he filed an appeal before the Collector, Khurda, being O.E.A. Appeal No. 25 of 1995, against the order passed by the Estate Abolition Collector which was disposed of on 19.5.2000 against the petitioner, for which the petitioner filed a revision being O.E.A. Revision Case No. 88 of 2000 before opposite party No. 5. It is pertinent to mention here that, on 4.9.1995, the petitioner filed Title Suit No. 305 of 1995 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar. In the said suit, on 4.4.1997, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 C.P.C. for stay of the further proceeding of Title suit till disposal of O.E.A. Appeal No. 25 of 1995 pending before the Collector, Khurda. According to the petitioner, the decision of the revisional authority under the O.E.A. Act is essential for adjudication of the suit for which he prayed that the Title Suit No. 305 of 1995 pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar be stayed till the disposal of the O.E.A. Revision Case No. 88 of 2000. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), after hearing the parties rejected the said application on the ground that as this Court in a previous writ application between the same parties in O.J.C. No. 14269 of 1997 categorically directed to continue the proceeding after completion of O.E.A. Appeal No. 25 of 1995 and as the O.E.A. Appeal has already been concluded, it would not be reasonable to stay the further proceedings of the suit. Thereafter the order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) was carried to the District Judge, Khurda in Civil Revision No. 21 of 2001. The District Judge, Khurda by his order dated 2.7.2001 confirmed the order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar and rejected the interim application filed in the said Civil Revision for stay of further proceedings in T.S. No. 48/305 of 2001/1995. The present writ application has been filed challenging the aforesaid order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed in O.J.C. No. 14269 of 1997 really meant for disposal of O.E.A. Appeal No. 25 of 1995 and vehemently argues that a revision being continuation of the O.E.A. proceeding, the Title suit should have awaited till the O.E.A. revision case is decided by the revision authority.