SRIDHARA MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ORRISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application is directed against the order dated 2-1-1995 of the Commissioner, Consolidation, Cuttack-opposite party No. 2 passed in Annexure-14 as well as the order dated 27-7-1992 of the Consolidation Officer, Jagatsinghpur-opposite party No. 4 passed in Annexure- 12.

(2.) In order to appreciate claims of respective parties the family genealogy as indicated in the writ application is reproduced below :- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_88_AIR(ORI)_2006Image1.jpg</IMG> The case of the parties stated, in brief, is that the disputed land originally had been recorded in the names of Banchanidhi Mohapatra, Alekha Mohapatra and Janardan Mohapatra. Late Damodar Mohapatra was the original owner, who had two sons namely Ananda and Janardan. Banchhanidhi and Alekha belong to the branch of Ananda. According to the petitioners, the branch of Ananda and Janardan each had 50% share in the properties. Ananda branch was in possession of eastern half whereas Janardan branch was in possession of western half of the properties. Alekha had three sons namely, Baishnaba, Sadhu and Sridhar. The wife of Shridhar is Malatilata. Both Shridhar and Malatilata are the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and rest 3 to 6 are the heirs of the petitioners 1 and 2. Similarly, in the branch of Janardan, Janardan had two sons namely, Ananta and Basudev. Basudev had two issues namely, Kanchan and Saraswati. The relevant heirs from the genealogy are taken note for the purpose of this case and therefore, the descriptions of the other heirs is not given. The further case of the petitioners is that Loknath who is alleged to be the son of Banchhanidhi sold his share of land to Shridhar under registered sale deed dated 31-5-1944. The son of Banchhanidhi namely, Kapil, through his guardian sold certain portion of his land to Malatidevi-petitionerNo. 2 under registered sale deed dated 13/11/1953. Sadhu the son of Alekha sold the entire share to Basudev son of Janardan towards eastern side under registered sale deed dated 19-3-1960. It is also the case of the petitioners that on 11-6-1964 there was mutual exchange of properties between Basudev, Ananta and Shridhar. The other transactions alleged by the petitioners are that Basudev gifted his undivided 1/4th share in favour of the Saraswati under a deed of gift on 11-6-1965 and through a registered partition deed dated 14-4-1967 in the branch of Alekha, the entire share of Alekha extending to 0.6-5 had been allotted to Shridhar and Malatilata and their heirs. In the Hal Settlement of 1983, record of rights in respect of khata No. 698 had been recorded in the name of the petitioners apart from some other properties, which are not in dispute. The Land Register was accordingly prepared during consolidation operation. While the matter stood thus, an objection was filed by the opposite party No. 5 namely, Saraswati belonging to the branch of Janardan for recording the land in her favour on the basis of deed of gift. At the time of hearing of the Objection Case, the said Saraswati produced a copy of the sale deed executed by Sadhu transferring the entire share in her favour and also the deed of gift under which she had received 1/4th share of Basudev. In the objection case, the Consolidation Officer directed for recording the entire land of 13 decimals in the name of opposite party No. 5 holding that Sadhu belonging to Ananda's branch, having right and title over the property had alienated the same in favour of Basudev. The Consolidation Officer also held that opposite party No. 5 had got the entire land by way of gift deed as well as on the basis of compromise between her heirs and Ananta in T.S. No. 112 of 1969 and was in possession thereof.

(3.) Challenging the said order passed in objection case, the petitioners preferred an appeal and the appeal was allowed holding that Ananta and Basudev exchanged their property with petitioner No. 1 and that the petitioners had acquired title in respect of L.R. Plot No. 2792 covering an area of A.06 decimals on the strength of a registered partition dated 24-7-1967. The appellate Court also held that the gift of undivided property by Basudev is void and the compromise decree passed in Title Suit No. 112 of 1969 is not binding on the petitioners. Challenging the said order of the appellate authority, opposite party No. 5 preferred Revision before the Commissioner. The Commissioner, Consolidation having allowed the Revision, the present writ application has been filed challenging the same.