SADANANDA SA Vs. COMMR OF CONSOLIDATION CUTTACK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.227 of the Constitution seeking for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash the orders of the authorities under the provisions of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereafter called the 'Act'), the orders of the said authorities having been annexed as Annexs. 6, 7 and 8 to the writ petition. The dispute centres round three plots bearing number 435 measuring 6.81 acres : No. 589 measuring 9.18 acres and Na 590 measuring 2.00 acres of 1921 Settlement appertaining to village Cherupalli of ex-State of Sonepur. These three plots are recorded as "Talikata", 'Uparikata' and 'Trishulbandha' respectively in the Record-of Rights in 2nd and 3rd Settlement, vide Annexs. 1 and 2, and 'Sri Zemindar has been recorded as the owner. It has further been mentioned that the forefather of the present petitioners who was Gountia of the Village excavated the tank in question. In the fourth Settlement Record-of-Rights (Annex. 3) in respect of corresponding plots Nos. 227, 230, 231 and 262/1145, Sadananda Sa, Daulat Sa and Rushav Sa, who are the petitioners in this writ application, have been recorded as raiyats. During the Consolidation operations in the area, Rushav filed an objection case impleading the two other brothers claiming for partition amongst them of the lands in question The Grama Panchayat at Cherupalli, on the other hand, filed another objection case that the lands have been transferred to the Grama Panchayat and, therefore, the lands should be recorded in the name of the Grama Panchayat. Both these objection cases were heard together and the Consolidation Officer disposed of both the objections by a common order (Annex. 61). The Consolidation Officer on scrutiny of available materials on record held that there was no evidence to prove whether the tanks in question were situated on the raiyati land of the present petitioners. It was further held that the Record-of-Rights prepared during the fourth Settlement recording the present petitioners as raiyats did not confer a raiyati status on the petitioners since it has been so prepared on the basis of a mis-reading of the instructions issued by the Member, Board of Revenue, while inspecting the area. It was further found that the water reservoirs and the tanks in dispute were situated on Government land. He also held that there was a collusion between the parties for preparation of the Record-of-Rights during the fourth Settlement operation in the names of Rushav Sa and others and the said Settlement Record-of-Rights having been prepared on mis-interpretation of instructions issued by the Member. Board of Revenue, did not confer any right on the petitioners. He also found that the title with respect to the tanks in question remained with the State Government, but the management of the tanks had been transferred to the Grama Panchayat and the Grama Panchayat was owning and possessing the same and exercising right of ownership. On these findings the objections were rejected. The present petitioners carried an appeal to the Deputy Director of Consolidation who dismissed the same by his order dt. 24-10-1981 (Annex. 7) in Appeal Case No. 73 of 1981. Two other appeals were also preferred and the same were disposed of on 31-10-1981. The Appellate Authority noted in its order that it was not the case of the appellants (the present petitioners) that the disputed plots were either their raiyati land or formed part of their Bhogra holding. He further recorded a finding that the plots in question were all along being treated as Government land with the proprietary interest of ex-Zamindar of Sukha Estate and the present petitioners had no raiyati right over the lands. He further held that a mere entry of the names of the petitioners in the Settlement Record-of-Rights could not be said to have established their raiyati status on the lands since the established principle of law is that a settlement entry neither creates nor destroys a right if exists. By referring to certain documents, exhibited in the proceedings, namely Exts. H. I and J the Appellate Authority also found that appellant No. 3 Rushava Sa, was one of the signatories along with other villagers. He came to the conclusion that the appellants never claimed any exclusive right over the two reservoirs. After referring to several letters and correspondence between the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Grama Panchayat, the Appellate Authority further found that the Government in the Revenue Department through their officers had all along been treating the water reservoirs to be the Government property and had transferred the same to the Cherupalli Grama Panchayat for augmentation of its resources and maintenance. Ultimately he came to the conclusion that the appellants (present petitioners) had not been able to establish their right title and possession in respect of all the case lands and accordingly dismissed the appeal. The Consolidation Commissioner on revision has also dismissed the revisions filed by the present petitioners and has confirmed the orders of the lower tribunals.

(2.) Mr. S. C. Mohaptra appearing for the petitioners contends that the orders of the authorities under the Act are erroneous on the face of them since due weight to presumption of entries in the Record-of-Rights (Annex. 3) has not been given. He further submits that the revenue authorities having accepted rent from the petitioners, the petitioners have been recognised as raiyats by the superior landlord, namely, the State. Mr. Mohapatra further submits that since admittedly the tanks in question were excavated by the forefather of the petitioners as recorded in the two successive Settlement Record-of-Rights (Annexs. 1 and 2) and are in continuous possession of the petitioners, it must be presumed that they have acquired a right of occupancy with respect to the lands in question.

(3.) The power of High Court to correct errors committed by tribunals in exercise of their statutory powers is not an appellate one. The object of a Writ of Certiorari is to keep the exercise of powers by judicial and quasi-judicial tribunals within the limits of jurisdiction assigned to them by law and to restrain them from acting in excess of their authority. As early as 1964, in the case of Syed Yakoob v. K. S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477, the Supreme Court enunciated the principles where a Writ of Certiorari can be issued and held : -