BASANTA KUMARI DEI Vs. KRUSHNAPRIYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS both the writ petitions arise out of the same facts, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) IN both the writ petitions, the order dated 20.9.2000 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in O.E.A. Appeal Case No. 3 of 2000 and subsequent consequential orders have been challenged and in O.J.C. No. 3690 of 2002 in addition to the above relief, the petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 31.5.1993 passed in Suo Motu Bebandobasta Case No. 47 of 1991 by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, out of which the aforesaid O.E.A. Appeal Case No. 3 of 2000 arose. The fact of the case reveals that there is long drawn litigations between the petitioner Smt. Basanta Kumari Dei and the opp.parties 1 and 2, namely, Smt. Krushna Priya Devi and Sri Jayananda Tripathy (in O.J.C. No. 3690 of 2002), which commenced from the year 1984. The case involves various disputed question of facts which is not required to be gone into in the present writ petitions. However, for convenience as some facts are necessary to be referred to, they are stated hereunder.

(3.) THE State of Orissa in its Revenue and Excise Department issued a circular addressed to the Land Reforms Commissioner, Orissa, Cuttack and the Secretary, Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack prescribing therein the manner in which lands recorded in 'Bebandobasta' status in the record of rights should be corrected by the respective Tahasildars. The said notification has been annexed as Annexure -8 to the writ petition (O.J.C. No. 3690/02). The said circular prescribes that for every such Bebandobasta khata the Tahasildar will start a case record and ask the concerned person to produce all documents/paper/evidence in support of his claim, within a definite time period. He shall also issue a public notice inviting objections. The matter should be disposed of within a maximum period of three months. The onus of establishing the case and proving it to the complete satisfaction of the Tahasildar would lie squarely on the person in whose name Bebandobasta khata has been prepared. It was also prescribed that as the concerned person/persons is/are apparently in occupation of land for long period as because the last batch of subsisting intermediary interests were vested in the State in 1974 and the concerned person presumably raised claims before the settlement authorities, there cannot be any valid reason for giving time or adjournment beyond reasonable period to produce documents/papers/evidence. On the basis of the aforesaid circular, the suo motu Bebandobasta Case No. 47/1991 was initiated by the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in respect of the properties in dispute. The order sheet in the said case has been annexed as Annexure -11 in O.J.C. No. 3690 of 2002. It appears from the order sheet of the said Bebandobasta case, that, though direction was given for issuing public notice, but the orders do not reveal that such a public notice was, in fact, issued inviting objections. It also transpires that no notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner in the writ petition, namely, Smt. Basanti Kumari Dei. However, it appears that notice was issued to the opp. party No. 2 -Jayananda Tripathy. The Addl. Tahasildar in the said case finally directed by his order dated 31.5.1993 that the land should be recorded in the name of the Executive Officer, Lord Lingaraj Mahaprabhu, Bhubaneswar on payment of salami. This order was then sent for confirmation to the Sub -Collector which was accordingly done on 30.3.1995. O.E.A. Appeal case No. 3/2000 was preferred by the opp. parties 1 and 2 in O.J.C. No. 3690/2002, against the said order passed by the Addl. Tahasildar, before the Addl. District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar. By the impugned order, the said Addl. District Magistrate directed to record the property in dispute in the names of the opp. parties 1 and 2 and accordingly it was further directed to correct the record.