HEMANTA KUMAR DWIVEDI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE orders dated 8.1.2004 (Annexure -1 respectively in all the Writ Petitions) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur in R.P. Nos. 162 -165 of 2003 in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under Section 15(b) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) are assailed in these Writ applications mainly on the following grounds : -

(2.) AS per the averments made, the petitioners and the contesting opposite party being Hindus are governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. The properties in dispute were acquired form the joint family nucleus and were enjoyed by all the members of the family notwithstanding the manner of acquisition. Late Dinabandhu Dwivedi was the common ancestor of the family who had two sons, being Bidyadhar Dwivedi and Gopal Dwivedi. In consonance with an amicable partition between the two brothers, they were enjoying properties allotted to their respective shares. Bidyadhar happened to be the Headman of Mahuapali village and he was enjoying certain 'Bhogra lands in lieu of his aforesaid service. After death of Bidhadhar, his son Maguni became the successor of the properties and he also became the Headman of that village. He enjoyed the 'Bhogra lands. The lands which were in the possession of Bidyadhar were recorded in Raiyati Khata No.108 under Sthitiban status. The lands possessed by Gopal, on the other hand, were recorded in Raiyati Khata No.94 also under Sthitiban status. In the year 1952, it is alleged, Gopal intended to sell the lands appertaining to plot Nos.466 -469 and 471 under Khata No.94 of village Mahuapali which exclusively belonged to him. Since the lands were adjacent to the dwelling house of Maguni, the latter purchased the same in the name of his minor son Umakanta, present opposite party No.6, who was then aged four years. Maguni had two sons, namely, Somanath and Umakanta, both of whom were minors when the aforesaid lands were purchased. Subsequently two sons, namely, Girija and Dibyasankar, were born to Maguni. The family of Maguni owned about hundred acres of land in village Mahuapali and other nearby villages. He had sufficient income and the family had also sufficient funds to purchase the said lands.

(3.) IN the year 1965 an amicable family arrangement was made among the major married and unmarried sons and grand sons in respect of the family properties including the purchased properties and, it is alleged, an area of Ac.1.54 decimals appertaining to plot Nos.466 -469 was allotted to Umakanta (opposite party No.6). The other properties were subsequently partitioned among the four sons of Maguni by a registered partition deed. While settlement operations started, the land was recorded in consonance with the family arrangement of the year 1965. The Settlement authorities caused enquiries and prepared the Yadust in consonance with the Amins report, field possession, etc. Hemanta, it is alleged, on verification notice that the area allotted to him was not as per his possession and the family arrangement. He therefore filed a petition before the concerned Assistant Settlement Officer which was registered as Objection Case No.2503 of 1978/6 of 1993. The said Objection Case was disposed of in consonance with law and preliminary draft R.O.R. was published. No objection was filed to the said draft R.O.R. nor was any appeal filed. Finally the Settlement authorities published the final R.O.R. as per Section 12 -B of the Act, vide Annexure -8. As per the said final R.O.R., separate possession of the parties in respect of different portions of the joint family lands were reflected. The name of Hemanta was recorded in respect of plot No.351 Part under Khata No.11. Hemanta then executed a lease deed in respect of the structure standing on his land in favour of M/s. Arora Brothers. While matter stood thus, in the year 2002, Umakanta, opposite party No.6, created disturbance in the family and in connivance with the daughter of Gopal Dwivedi, brother of Bidyadhar, Girija Shankar Dwivedi tried to grab the property. Umakanta filed the Revision Case before the Settlement Commissioner to set aside the final R.O.R. of the year 1982. After filing of the aforesaid Revision Cases, dissensions cropped up among the family members and their relationship practically severed. The Joint Commissioner after hearing the parties and considering the materials available on record set aside the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer in Objection Case Nos.2503 of 1978/6 of 1993, 2504 of 1978/6 of 1994 and 2506 of 1978/6 of 1996, allowed Revision Case Nos.162 of 2002 and 163, 164 and 165 of 2003, set aside the R.O.R. and directed the Tahasildar, Panposh to correct the records in consonance with the orders passed in the Revision Cases, vide respective Annexure -1.