RAMA CHANDRA CHAUDHURY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge is made to the order dated 7.1.2004 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate, Chhatrapur, opposite party no.4, in OPLE Revision Case No.6 of 2001, vide Annexure -3; the order dated 19.7.2001 passed by the Sub -Collector, Bhanjanagar, opposite party no.3, in OPLE Appeal No.1 of 1999, vide Annexure -6 and the order of eviction dated 27.12.1995 passed by the Tahasildar, Aska, opposite party no.2, in E.C No.490 of 1995, vide Annexure -5, respectively. By order dated 7.1.2004, the opposite party no.4 directed the opposite party no.2 to take possession of the tank, which is the subject -matter of dispute.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case of the petitioner is that the disputed property appertaining to Survey No.160, Khata No.19, area Ac.10.52 dec. of Mouza -Punand is popularly known as Laxmi Nrusingha Sagar. The kissam of the land is Jalasaya. In the year 1948, the Tahasildar, Aska, opposite party no.2, issued notice to the father of the petitioner under Section 7 of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1905 for eviction. In the said notice, others villagers of villagePunanda were also impleaded as encroachers in respect of other lands, which were in their possession. While the matter stood thus, opposite party no.2, initiated Encroachment Case No.490 of 1995 against the petitioner for his unauthorised occupation of the land described above. After hearing the matter at length, opposite party no.2 came to hold that the petitioner was an Ex -Sarpanch of the Gothagaon G.P. for a petty long time and was managing the Laxmi Nrusingha Sagar. The tank was recorded in Paramboke Khata with description of Jaladhara in the record -ofright published in the year 1948, which is communal in nature. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner that he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession was negatived. He unsuccessfully challenged the same before the Sub -Collector, Bhanjanagar, opposite party no.3, in OPLE Appeal No.1 of 1999. By order dated 19.7.2001, opposite party no.3 negatived the plea of adverse possession and held that the opposite party no.2 ought to have passed the order of eviction, instead of rejecting the claim of the petitioner and remitted the matter back to the opposite party no.2. The revision filed by the petitioner before the Addl. District Magistrate, Chatrapur, opposite party no.4 was eventually dismissed.

(3.) Heard Mr. K. B. Kar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the opposite parties 1 to 4, Miss. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Ghthagam Grama Panchayat and Mr. S.S. Rao, learned counsel for the intervenors -villagers.