MADHUSUDAN PARIDA Vs. TAHASILDAR, BHUBANESWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Kar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Das, learned Addl. Government Advocate.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the ex -intermediary granted a lease in the year 1943 in respect of the lands appertaining to Hal Plot No.4290 measuring an area of Ac.0.028 decimals, Hal Plot No.4289 measuring an area of Ac.0.017 decimals and Hal Plot No.4288 measuring an area of Ac.0.017 decimals situated in mouza Gadakana in the district of Puri and inducted them as tenants by granting a Hata Patta. It is further alleged that petitioners possessed the lands as tenants till the Estate vested with the State Government in consonance with the provisions of Orissa Estate Abolition Act. According to Mr. Kar, in consonance with the provisions of Section 8(1) of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, the tenancy right was protected and the petitioners were deemed to be tenants under the State Government. After vesting of the Estate, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, initiated vesting Misc. case No.97/80, caused enquiries and on being satisfied that the petitioners were inducted as tenants and they were in possession on the date of vesting, recognized them as tenants under the State and settled the lands as would be evident form the order dated 18.3.1981, Annexure -2. In consonance with the said order rent was assessed and the same was collected form the petitioners regularly for quite some time. However, without any rhyme or reason the Revenue Authorities refused to accept rent form the petitioners. On enquiry the petitioners learnt that the Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack in O.E.A. Revision Case No.31 of 1992 by order dated 17.9.1993 purportedly in exercise of powers under Section 38 -B of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, set aside the order of the Tahasildar -cum -O.E.A. Collector, Bhubaneswar directing correction of the finally published record of rights and incorporating the possession of the petitioners in respect of the lands. It appears similar orders were also passed in respect of other tenants. The petitioners challenged the order dated 1.10.1993 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue in O.J.C. No.8186 of 1993. This Court by order dated 3.4.1995 held that the Tahasildar was right in making the observations and as the order (Annexure -2) was not passed under the O.E.A. Act it could not have been set aside by the Member, Board of Revenue, in exercise of the revisional power under Section 38 -B of the said Act. On the basis of the aforesaid conclusions the order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue was quashed.

(3.) THEREAFTER the G.A. Department filed a revision, purportedly to be one under Section 42 A of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules before the Collector, Khurda. The same was registered as Revision Case No.1 of 2000. The revisional authority set aside the order passed by the Tahasildar in O.E.A. Misc. Case No.92 of 1980 by order dated 24.11.2000. Being aggrieved the tenants once again approached this Court in O.J.C. No.12419 of 2000. This Court quashed the order passed by the Collector (Revisional authority) in Revision Case No.1 of 2000 and directed the Revenue authorities to receive rent in respect of the suit lands in consonance with the decision of the Tahasildar passed in Misc. Case No.97/80.