SURENDRANATH BISWAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ application, the petitioner-Surendranath Biswal has sought to challenge the order dated 25.08.1997 passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation, Orissa, Cuttack (O.P.2) allowing Consolidation R.C. No.78 of 1995 and setting aside the order dated 9.12.1994 passed by the appellate authority (Deputy Director Consolidation, Kendrapara) in Appeal Case No.70 of 1994 directing to record the disputed land in favour of the petitioner as well as the opposite parties jointly each having 1/5th interest after verification of R.S.D. No.6137 dated 31.12.84 and sabik-hal records/maps etc.

(2.) The genealogy of the parties in the present case is noted as hereunder: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_33_LAWS(ORI)6_2014_1.html</FRM>

(3.) It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that since both Bata and Narahari (brothers of Gobinda) were childless, Bata adopted Duryodhan (son of Gobinda) and Narahari, who married to Chanda (wife) had adopted the petitioner-Surendra (son of Gobinda) in the year 1954. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the adoption of the petitioner has been accepted by Chanda (adopted mother) during the settlement operation in the year 1965-66 while the Yadast was published which would be evident from Annexure-1. It is further submitted that there was an amicable partition between three brothers, namely, Gobinda, Bata and Narahari and all of them had possessed 1/3rd share of their ancestral property. The petitioner further stated that on 31.7.1978 (RSD No.6001 dated 31.7.1978), a portion of the ancestral property was sold by registered sale-deed in favour of one Ratnakar Sahu and the said sale-deed had been signed by Gobinda (natural father of the petitioner), Duryodhan as son of Bata (O.P.6) and the petitioner as son of Narahari. It is also the admitted fact that the petitioner's adoption by Narahari had came to be accepted and had been acted upon. The petitioner also placed reliance on the voter's list published in the year 1984 where the petitioner's name had been recorded as the son of Narahari while Duryodhan's name had been recorded as the son of Batakrushna.