INDUMATI JENA Vs. SUB-COLLECTOR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner assailing the order passed by the Sub -collector, Puri in Miscellaneous Certificate Appeal No. 41 of 2007 thereby cancelling the, Residential Certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Brahmagiri in respect of the Petitioner. The Petitioner assailing the aforesaid order submitted that she is the daughter of one Suratha Jena, Village -Kathua Aredi, P.O. Bentapur, P.S. Brahmagiri in the district of Puri. She got into a love marriage with one Amulya Kumar Sahoo, a resident of village Barapada, such marriage was solemnized on 28.04.2007 in the Alaranath Temple, at Alarapur & since that time she is residing along with her husband in the village Barapada. Since she got into marriage in a temple, she has obtained Notary Public Marriage Affidavit & a Notary Marriage Certificate in her favour. Following an advertisement for selection of Anganwadi Worker for the Anganwadi Center at Barapada, she had applied for the post & as necessary she had also obtained Residential Certificate from the Tahasildar, Brahamagiri. The Tahasildar, Brahamagiri registered her application for Residential Certificate as Misc. Case No. 2481 of 2007, conducted an enquiry through Revenue Inspector & being satisfied granted a Residential Certificate in favour of the Petitioner as appearing at Annexure -2. Petitioner attached the said Residential Certificate along with her application for the post of Anganwadi Worker. The Petitioner further submitted that it is at this stage, the Opp. Party No. 3 being the husband of another applicant challenged the grant of Residential Certificate in favour of the Petitioner by filing Miscellaneous Appeal No. 41 of 2007. It is alleged by the Petitioner that in spite of her objection on the maintainability of the appeal at the instance of the third party & further on the ground of residential certificate being issued on sufficient materials available on record, the Appellate Authority did not consider her objection & by the impugned order (Annexure -3), the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal thereby holding that the order passed in the Residential Misc. Case No. 2481 of 2007 in favour of the present Petitioner as bad. It is as a consequence of which the Tahasildar vide Annexure -4 communicated the Petitioner regarding the cancellation of the Residential Certificate, which was granted in her favour hence the Writ Petition. Per contra, State Counsel by filing a counter affidavit attempted to justify the order passed by the Sub -collector, Puri in the Miscellaneous Certificate Appeal No. 41 of 2007 & the consequential communication of the Tahasildar in cancellation of the Residential Certificate as appearing at Annexures -3 & 4 respectively. The State Counsel submitted that there is a great level of confusion with regard to the matter of the Petitioner in the Notarial affidavit & the marriage document though the Notarial affidavit are not acceptable in the eye of law. Exhibiting certain discrepancies in the Public Notarial affidavit submitted by the Petitioner, the State Opp. Party demonstrated the discrepancies & justified its claim in dismissing the Writ Petition for such discrepancies & further on the ground of fraudulent preparation of the affidavit. Referring to Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3268 -3270 of 2005 arising out of SLP (C) No. 1920 -1922 of 2003, the State Opp. Party submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in categoric terms deprecated acceptance of fraudulent documents. It is on these premises, the Opp. Party No. 1 claimed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. The private Opp. Party even though has appeared in the matter, but choose not filing any counter affidavit & orally submitted in the line of the submissions made by the State Opp. Parties.

(2.) OPP . Party No. 1 in filing a written note of submission referring to Judgment reported in the case of Smt. Jeewanti Pandey vrs. Kishan Chandra Pandey; : AIR 1982 S.C. 3 & in the case of Union of India & ors vrs. Dudh Nath Prasad; : AIR 2000 S.C. 525 submitted that in view of the above ruling by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Petitioner is not entitled to Residential Certificate for not having the residence in the locality for a considerable period. The State Opp. Party also referred to a circular issued by the State Government in the Department of Revenue & Disaster Management dated 08.03.2011 & submitted that in view of the guidelines contained therein the Petitioner is not entitled to Residential Certificate.

(3.) RULE 8 of the 1984 Rules authorizes the person aggrieved by an order passed by the Revenue Officer under Rule -6 may prefer an appeal. In my considered opinion, term 'any person cannot be stressed to the extent of including a third party at the best it should be a party to the dispute already decided. It is necessary to mention here that Petitioner since resort to Rule -4 of Rules. 1984 & as a consequent of which the said proceeding terminated with an order under Rule -6, it is only the parties to the order under Rule -6 are authorized to raise an appeal under Rule -8 of the Rules, 1984 & nobody else. This was a subject matter in a case before the Hon'ble Apex Court & the Hon'ble Apex Court considering the submissions of the parties in the decision in between Centre for Public Interest Litigation & anr vrs. Union of India & ors as reported in : AIR 2001 S.C. 80 has come to hold that 'any person' does not include a third party. This is also the view of this Court in a decision in the case of Santosh Kumar Tripathy vrs. State of Orissa & two ors in O.J.C. No. 15068 of 1999 in a Judgment delivered on 16.12.2014.