JHANKARAN Vs. MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ application at the instance of the petitioners Ramlal Oram and Minchi Oram claiming to be grandson and daughter of Bhima Oram challenges the impugned order dated 24 -1 -1985 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Sambalpur in V. P. A. Case No. 2 of 1979 and also the decision made on 30 -5 -1989 by the Member, Board of Revenue in V.P.A.R.C. Case No. 6 of 1985, copies whereof are annexed as Annexures -2 and 3 to the writ application. Their further prayer for declaring opposite party No. 4 Chunilal Oram as not performing seba puja at the time of vesting and in lieu of the same, he was not possessing the case land and that the petitioners being substituted in place of Smt. Jhankaran, wife of late Bhima Jhankar were actually cultivating and possessing the entire case land at the time of vesting and as such, entitled for settlement of the entire case land.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the petition on record. We find that the revisional authority viz. the Member. Board of Revenue has discussed the facts of the case in details and in depth. It was found that Suku Jhankar was the original Jhankar of the land. A Jhankar appears to be a village priest who enjoys Jhankar Jagir land for performing seba puja of the village deity. Suku was succeeded by Bhima Jhankar, his son. Bima Jhankar thus became the Jhankar. Bhima Jhankar died more than 19 years prior to the vesting of the land. He died without leaving any male issue. On his death, his widow Srimati Jhankar allegedly continued to be in possession of the land. Khepai was found to be the brother of Suku, Jharu is Khepai's son. Chunilal is the son of Jharu and grandson of Khepai. Admittedly, the case land vested in the State on 1 -7 -1365. In accordance with Sections 3 and 4 of Orissa Offices of Village Police (Abolition) Act, on the abolition of the Jhankar Jagir lands, 50% of the lands should be settled with rights of occupancy with the Village Officer and his co -sharers and tenants and the balance 50% of the land will be continued as Jagir land for the seba puja of the daity and to be held by the Jhankar so long he discharges the duties of a village priest. It is observed in the impugned order that on the date of vesting notification, there was no village priest except Srimati Jhankaran who was in possession of the land and getting the necessary seba puja of the village deity done through her agents and others. It was, therefore, wrong for the Courts below to record jointly Ac. 2.18 decimals of land in favour of the revision petitioner Srimati Jhankaran and opposite party No. 1 Chunilal and also allowing Ac. 2.17 decimals of the Jhankar Jagir land on conditional/ service basis in favour of Chunilal. It was claimed that in the 145 Cr PC case, order was passed on 26 -3 -1968 immediately after vesting and there was a finding that the case land is under the possession of Srimati Jhankaran. Stating all these facts, the order of the Additional District Magistrate was challenged.

(3.) PATIENTLY hearing learned counsel for both the parties and looking at the materials on record, we do not find that the decision of the Member, Board of Revenue is either contrary to or inconsistent with the materials on record and the provisions of the relevant Act as observed above. Since we do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioners, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Member, Board of Revenue. The petition fails and hence is rejected. No order as to costs.