JAYASHREE SHARMA Vs. CHANDBAI SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dated 20.11.2004 (Annexue-4) passed by the Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur in Consolidation Revision No.486 of 2004, has been challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) The disputed land measures Ac.9.36 in M.S. Holding No.308 corresponding to Chaka Holding No.757 in village-Barahaguda. Admittedly Ac.36.00 of land including the present disputed land was the self acquired property of one Manohar Sharma, who is the common ancestor of the petitioners and private opposite party nos.1 and 2. Manohar Sharma had three sons, namely, Harisankar, Ramkisan and Surya and two daughters, namely, Chandbai and Gitabai, who are opposite party nos.1 and 2 to the writ petition. Surya had died issueless. The writ petitioners are the daughters of late Harisankar. Manohar Sharma died in 1972 and prior to his death, he had already sold some of his lands. In 1976 a suo motu ceiling proceeding bearing OLR Case No.261 of 1976 was initiated against Manohar Sharma by the Tahasildarcum-Revenue Officer, Baragarh under Section 42 of the OLR Act. On 19.05.1982 Harisankar, the father of the present petitioners appears in the said OLR proceeding and raised objection stating that some of the lands had already been sold by Manohar and the rest of the properties were partitioned between Manohara and his two sons, Harisankar and Ramakisan and that both the sons were possessing their shares separately. The Revenue Officer directed for preparing a draft statement showing the names of Banibai, wife of late Surajmal, Harisankar, Ramkisan, Chandbai and Gitabai, showing Ac.24.96 as ceiling surplus since they as a body of individuals, were entitled to ten standard acres of land. The Tahasildar directed for service of the draft statement on all the parties interested in the property. However, no notice or draft statement was served on Chandbai and Gitabai (present opposite party nos.1 and 2). Harisankar and Ramakishan filed their objection to the draft statement. Because of their absence on the date of hearing the Revenue Officer confirmed the draft statement under Section 44(1) of the OLR Act. The confirmation order was challenged by Ramkisan and Harisankar before the Sub-Collector, Baragarh in OLR Appeal No.60 of 1982. The appeal was allowed and the ceiling proceeding was remanded to the Revenue Officer for fresh hearing by giving due opportunity to the appellants therein. After such remand, the Revenue Officer by his order dated 15.01.1985 accepted the contention of Harisankar and Ramkisan and disposed of the proceeding holding that both the brothers were living separately in mess and property for more than twenty years and they were married prior to the appointed date and that their father was dead and hence both were entitled to two separate ceilings and that having regard to the total extent of land, there was no ceiling surplus.

(3.) In the meantime, after the final order was passed by the Revenue Officer as aforesaid, consolidation operation started in the disputed village. Opposite party no.1 filed OLR Appeal No.2 of 2000 challenging the order of the Revenue Officer accepting plea of partition raised by Harisankar and Ramkisan and allotment of two separate ceilings in their favour. The appeal was filed on the ground that no notice at all of the OLR proceeding and the draft statement was issued to her. The appellant's contention was that there was no partition and allotment of shares in favour of Harisankar and Ramkisan and that she being the daughter of late Manohar Sharma, she has 1/4th interest in the entire property left by Manohar Sharma. The appellate authority (Sub Collector) allowed the appeal, set aside the Revenue Officer's order and again remanded the ceiling case to the Revenue Officer for disposal after giving due opportunities to the appellant and other interested parties. The present writ petitioners challenged the said appellate order before the Additional District Magistrate, Baragarh in OLR Revision No.1 of 2000. The revision was allowed holding that Chandbai and Gitabai were major daughters and married prior to the appointed date and, therefore, they cannot claim any land allotted to their brothers. The said revisional order of the Additional District Magistrate was challenged by present opposite party no.1 before this Court in W.P.(C) No.6797 of 2002, which has been disposed of by judgment dated 21.01.2013 directing for fresh hearing and disposal of the ceiling case by the Revenue Officer after giving notice to all persons to whom, the draft statement relates.