PRAFULLA CHANDRA MUDULI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER an authority under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 has jurisdiction to set aside and/or ignore an order of settlement of land passed by a competent authority under the provisions of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act; is the point that needs to be answered in the present case.

(2.) THE petitioners assert that they are the legal heirs and successors of an ex intermediary in respect of the property in question. After vesting of the Estate in consonance with a Notification issued under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, the ex intermediary, i.e. their predecessor -in -interest, filed applications under Section 8 -A(4) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 before the O.E.A. Collector, Nimapara which were registered as OEA Case Nos.447, 454 and 461 of 1958 -59. After issuing notice and observing all paraphernalia, and on being satisfied that the lands in question could be settled with the ex intermediary, the OEA Collector passed orders on 13.8.1959 settling the said lands with the petitioners as occupancy raiyats under the State. In consonance with the said order the Revenue records were corrected and the lands were recorded in the names of the petitioners, Rent/land revenue as settled was paid by the petitioners form the year 1958 -59 up to 1981 -82, i.e. for a period of twenty -eight years to the State through the Tahasildar, Nimapara. Thereafter without any rhyme or reason the Tahasildar refused to accept rent form the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said action, the petitioners filed OJC Nos.535 of 1992 before this Court which was allowed to be withdrawn as there was some changed circumstances granting liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh Writ application with all relevant documents.

(3.) AFTER receiving notice, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Addl. Settlement Officer, Puri, opposite party No.4 taking the stand that the lands settled by the OEA Collector with the intermediary being "ANABADI", i.e. waste lands, the order settling the same with the petitioners was illegal. It is stated that in consonance with Section 5(9) of the OEA Act, all waste lands are to vest absolutely with the State free form encumbrances and an intermediary had no interest on such lands. Further an 'Anabadi land can not be settled with an intermediary under Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the OEA Act and, as such, by virtue of the order passed by the OEA Collector, no right was conferred on the petitioners and the said order being vulnerable has been rightly ignored by the Settlement authorities concerned.