LAWS(ORI)-2014-8-67

SUSANTA KUMAR JENA Vs. BASANTI SETHI

Decided On August 25, 2014
Susanta Kumar Jena Appellant
V/S
Basanti Sethi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants being the legal heirs of the deceased -writ petitioner in O.J.C. No. 7296 of 1998 have filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment dated 13.02.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge confirming the order dated 27.10.1997 (Annexure -7 to the writ petition) passed by the Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Bhubaneswar in Revision Case No.70 of 1994 setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer, Bhadrak dated 04.06.1993 passed in Objection Case No.505 of 1992 (Annexure -4 to the writ petition) and the order of the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Bhadrak passed in Appeal Case No.29 of 1993 (Annexure -5 to the writ petition).

(2.) THE factual backdrop of the case in hand is that C.S. Plot No.963 was recorded as Puratan Patita in the name of ex -landlord, Mrutunjaya Narayan Praharaj which was divided into several plots under M.S. Khata No.385, M.S. Plot No.1049. The disputed land relates to M.S. Plot No.1049 comprising an area of Ac.0.84 under M.S. Khata No.385 which is a part of Plot No.963 measuring Ac.5.11 dec. under C.S. Khata No.179. M.S. Khata No.385 was recorded in the name of State of Orissa as Abadjogya Anabadi whereas M.S. Plot No.1049 so far it relates to Ac.0.84 recorded as "Patita". Tenants Ledger in respect of area Ac.2.36 dec. out of Ac.5.11 dec in respect of C.S. Plot No.963 under C.S. Khata No.179 was opened in the name of Kameswar Narayan Praharaj. Respondents/opposite party nos.1 and 2 purchased the disputed land from their vendor, Kameswar Narayan Praharaj in whose name tenancy ledger stood. Therefore, during consolidation operation "parcha? was issued in respect of the said disputed plot in favour of the respondents/opposite party nos.1 and 2.

(3.) THE writ petitioner filed Objection Case No.505 of 1992 stating, inter alia, that the disputed plot be recorded as Abadjogya Anabadi and respondents/opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have no right, title and interest over the same. Accordingly, respondents/opposite party Nos.1 and 2 contested the objection case categorically stating that the ex -landlord Mrutyunjaya Praharaj had leased out Ac.2.36 out of Ac.5.11 of the disputed C.S. Plot NO.963 in favour of his son Kameswar Narayan Praharaj in whose favour Tenants Ledger was opened. Kameswar Narayan Praharaj sold the disputed land to one Gangadhar Senapati by way of registered sale deed dated 29.03.1966, who in turn sold Ac.0.40 dec. out of the same to Fakir Charan Tripathy by way of registered sale deed dated 17.02.1978. Subsequently, by virtue of the registered sale deeds dated 24.06.1983 and 02.09.1983 Aparna Tripathy, widow of Fakir Ch. Tripathy sold the said Ac.0.40 dec. in favour of opposite party No.1. By virtue of registered sale deed dated 09.09.1983 Gangadhar Senapati had sold Ac.0.22 dec. of the disputed property to opposite party no.1 and by virtue of another sale deed dated 09.09.1983 Gangadhar Senapati also sold the rest Ac.0.22 dec. of the disputed land to opposite party No.2 and they have been paying rent to the State and as such they have right, title and interest over the said land. While deciding the objection case the Consolidation Officer categorically stated that M.S. Plot was recorded in favour of the State in Abadajogya Anabadi Khata. During initial stage of consolidation operation, the said disputed plot was recorded as L.R. Plot No.1049, Ac.0.84 in favour of respondents/opposite party Nos.1 and 2 on the basis of the intimation slip issued in Mutatin Case Nos.1750 and 1751. The Consolidation Officer also found that the Tenants Ledger in respect of Ac.2.63 out of the disputed C.S. Plot was opened in favour of Kameswar Narayan Praharaj. The Consolidation Officer directed to record the disputed M.S. Plot No.1049 in the name of the State in Abadajogya Anabadi Khata under Kisam -Patita on the finding that the lease of the disputed land along with other land measuring Ac.2.36 by Mrutyunjaya Narayan Praharaj in favour of his son Kameswar Narayan Praharaj, who was then a minor, was void.