GOBARDHAN PRADHAN Vs. SIDHESWAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in this writ application challenge the legality of the orders passed by the Consolidation authorities in Annexures -7, 8 and 9.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that their father late Chandramani Pradhan was a Bhag Tenant under the father of opposite party No. 1 prior to vesting. The interest of ex -intermediary vested with the State Government after coming into force the Orissa Estate Abolition Act and the disputed properties belonging to the ex -intermediary vested in the State Government in the year 1951. After vesting, the father of the petitioners, who had been inducted as a tenant by the ex -intermediary claimed settlement of the land on the basis of Ekpadia issued by the ex -intermediary. The name of the father of the petitioners was recorded in the Tenant Ledger and the rent was realized from him. After death of Chandramani Pradhan, the present petitioners succeeded to the properties. During the last settlement operation, after verification of the records, the authorities recorded the name of the father of the petitioners in the settlement record and at that stage no objection was raised by the opposite party No. 1. Out of the total lands so settled, Ac. 2.42 decimals of land were acquired by the Irrigation Department for public purpose and in the Land Acquisition Proceeding the petitioners also got compensation having been found in exclusive possession of the same. After consolidation operation started in the village, the opposite party No. 5 filed an Objection Case vide No. 1643 of 1993 before the Assistant Consolidation Officer for recording the acquired land including a portion of the suit land in favour of the Irrigation Department and the said Objection Case was allowed on 20th December, 1993. In the said Objection Case, the Amin also gave a report stating that the acquired portion of the land belonged to the petitioners. It is also the case of the petitioners that the father of opposite party No. l had filed a suit in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri against the mother of the present petitioners for declaration that the mother of the petitioners is not entitled to receive compensation in the Land Acquisition Proceeding on the ground that the father of opposite party No. 1 had purchased the suit properties in Court auction on 8.7.1954 and took delivery of possession on 1.5.1958. During pendency of the aforesaid suit, the father of opposite party No. 1 died and the mother of opposite party No. 1 was substituted. The suit was contested and the same was dismissed. The trial Court held that the mother of the petitioners was in possession of the suit land for a long time and the father of the opposite party No. 1 though purchased the land in Court auction, it remained a paper transaction and the actual possession remained with the mother of the petitioners. The said judgment was challenged in appeal before the learned District Jude, Puri in Title Appeal No. 35 of 1973 and the same was also dismissed. It is further case of the petitioners that they having remained in possession for long time, the land should have been recorded in their name.

(3.) ON perusal of the orders passed by the consolidation authorities, it appears that the claim of the opposite party No. 1 that his father had purchased the suit properties in a Digrijari Rent Suit was accepted by all the three Courts and direction was also issued to record the suit land in the name of the opposite party No. l. However, there is no dispute that after a portion of the land was acquired by the State Government, the father of the opposite party No. 1 filed the suit for declaration that he was the owner of the properties and that he is entitled to receive the compensation. There is also no dispute that the said suit was dismissed and appeal preferred against the judgment of the trial Court was also dismissed holding that the father of the petitioners was all through in possession of the suit properties and accordingly, the father of opposite party No. 1 was not entitled to receive compensation. True it is. the judgments of the Civil Courts were not brought to the notice of the consolidation authorities and for the first time reliance was placed on such judgments before this Court. Considering the findings arrived at by the Civil Court in the said suit, I am of the view that in order to impart substantial justice to both the parties, the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Courts should be considered by the consolidation authorities.