AMARESWAR SAHOO Vs. RANI BEWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the correctness of the impugned order dtd. 19/2/2025 as at Annexure-3 passed in connection with CMA Misc. Case No.141 of 2015 arising out of Execution Case No.12 of 2001 corresponding to T.S. No.3/180 of 2000/1980 by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nimapada, whereby request to adduce evidence in support of the claim upon an application moved under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC by them was declined on the grounds inter alia that such a decision is erroneous and legally untenable.

(2.) In fact, the petitioners, who are not parties to the suit instituted by opposite party Nos.1, 2, original defendant Nos.3 and 4, 5 and 6, original defendant Nos.7 and 8 along with defendant Nos.9 to 11, knocked the doors of learned court below with an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC claiming right over the suit schedule land while opposing the decree in T.S. No.3/180 of 2000/1980 and execution thereof initiated against opposite party No.11 for ejectment therefrom with a plea that such decree and its execution be declared as void and inoperative pleading on record that one Sankar Sahoo and opposite party No.11 were and have been in possession of 19 links x 40 links of land each with the claim that the predecessors of the opposite parties and proforma opposite parties allowed both of them to run their shops from over Sabik Plot Nos.706 and 778 upon payment of rent for Ac.0.01 decimal each, however, during Consolidation operation, the name of Sankar Sahoo was recorded in the parcha with a remark 'Jabardakhal' and in respect of Brundaban Sahoo as 'be ayin kharid sutre dakhal' against LR Plot Nos.778 and 778/1708 respectively with both the plots recorded under Land Register Khata No.159 situate in Mouza-Dhumal. The further pleading is that the recorded owners of the land agreed upon the request received from Sankar Sahoo and Brundaban Sahoo to sell away Ac.0.01 decimal each corresponding to Sabik Plot No.706 with the execution of the registered sale deeds on 4/2/1982. It is claimed that said Sankar Sahoo after having purchased the land constructed an asbestos house and thereafter, a pucca building over the same in the year 1995 and Brundaban Sahoo similarly raised construction over the land acquired by him. It is alleged that on the land of the petitioners and proforma opposite parties in the direction of North-South with a length of 13 links and breadth of 40 links, there exists two hatched rooms being let out to different tenants, hence, therefore, the length of the plot in question is 51 links with 35 links in breath on the Southern side running from East-West with a total area of Ac.0.02 decimals which corresponds to Consolidation Khata No.322 Plot No.819 measuring an Ac.0.01 decimal and Consolidation Khata No.260, Plot No.818 with an area of Ac.0.01 decimal but in view of the Consolidation parcha, the opposite parties' predecessor, namely, Sankar Sahoo filed Objection Case No.4287 of 1981 under Sec. 9(3) of the OCH and PFL Act to record their names in respect of Ac.0.01 decimal vis-a-vis LR Plot No.778 under Khata No.159 and also for increase of land from Ac.0.01 decimal to Ac.0.02 decimal and according to the petitioners, even though, the purchase was in respect of Ac.0.01 decimal, whereafter, the Consolidation Authority recorded Ac.0.01 decimal only and then the Provisional Consolidation Scheme was confirmed on 1/4/1986 and even though such request was rejected, a review was filed in Misc. Case No.1 of 1986 under Sec. 48 of the OCH and PFL Act and therein, the learned Consolidation Officer, Gop-Kakatpur by order dtd. 25/6/1986 increased the area to Ac.0.02 decimal though the purchase was for Ac.0.01 decimal acquired through void registered sale deed in 1982. The petitioners contend that such an order is grossly erroneous and without jurisdiction, as against which, opposite party No.11, namely, Brundaban Sahoo filed Consolidation Revision No.2853 of 1989 before the learned Commissioner, Consolidation but it was dismissed by order dtd. 20/6/1995. The contention is that the purchase of Ac.0.01 decimal by Sankar Sahoo under the sale deed dtd. 4/2/1982 having been admitted by him, the learned authorities below grossly erred in directing Ac.0.02 decimal to be recorded and any such decision challenged by opposite party No.11 is illegal and without jurisdiction and though OJC No.5489 of 1983 was filed against it, the same was not entertained due to absence of any error apparent on the face of the order in question. The further claim is that notwithstanding the above, both Sankar Sahoo and opposite party No.11 were in possession of 19 links x 40 links of land each and as far as the decision of the consolidation authorities are concerned, it has been on account of fraud and misrepresentation and hence, to direct Ac.0.02 decimal to be recorded in favour of opposite party Nos.1 to 10 or for that matter, with Sankar Sahoo being their predecessor-in-interest becomes void ab initio.

(3.) Heard Mr. Mohapatra, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the opposite parties.