JAGADISH MOHAPATRA & OTHERS Vs. COMMISSIONER, CONSOLIDATION AND SETTLEMENT, ORISSA, BHUBANESWAR & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application challenges the order dated 23.11.1995 passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, opposite party no.1, in Settlement Revision Case No.520 of 1990, whereby opposite party no.1 dismissed the application of the petitioners to correct the record-of-right.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that Samanta Damodar Mohapatra had got Ac.0.24 dec. of Gharabari land under Khata No.3, Plot No.32-Ac.0.22 dec. and Plot No.34-Ac.0.02 dec. of MozaBasudevpur as Lakharajdar from the ex-ruler of Khandapara State prior to 1931 settlement. The status of the land was 'Brahmottara Niskar'. He was exercising all acts of ownership over the same. After his death, the land was recorded in the name of his son Samanta Balaram Mohapatra in 1931 settlement. While the matter stood thus, the land was vested to Government of Orissa by notification dated 23.10.1963 issued under the Orissa Estate Abolition Act. Thereafter, Samanta Balaram Mohapatra, predecessor of the petitioners, filed Vesting Case No.494 of 1964-65 before the Tahasildar-cum-Estate Abolition Collector, Khandapara. By order dated 8.5.1972, the Estate Abolition Collector directed him to deposit the arrear rent from 1964-65 to 1971-72. Rent was deposited on 23.5.1972. On the same date, the Estate Abolition Collector directed record keeper to correct the R.O.R in his name and directed office to put up the rent schedule on 24.6.1972. Thereafter, the rent schedule was prepared in his name under Sections 6,7 and 8(3) of the O.E. Act on 2.6.1972. Thereafter, vesting case was closed on 8.8.1973. By virtue of the settlement, a right was created in favour of Samanta Balaram Mohapatra. He used to pay rent to the Government. After his death, his successors were paying rent to the Government. While the matter stood thus, the settlement operation in Khandapara area started in the year 1978. In settlement operation, the land was recorded in the name of Samanta Balaram Mohapatra. But in Objection Case No.10/2, the land was recorded in the name of opposite parties 3 to 10 on the ground of adverse possession. During settlement operation, Samanta Balaram Mohapatra died leaving behind his widow Suryamani Dibya and son Kishore Chandra Mohapatra. Petitioners were not aware about the same. The R.O.R. was published on 30.3.1989 in the name of opposite parties 3 to 10. Though an area of 24 decimals was settled in the name of Samanta Balaram Mohapatra, but the same had been reduced to 19 decimals. Being aggrieved, the widow and son of Balaram Mohapatra filed an application under Sections 15 and 25 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act before the Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement, Orissa, for correction of Hal R.O.R. to delete the name of opposite parties 3 to 10 and correct the area from Ac.0.19 dec. to Ac.0.24 dec., which was registered as Settlement Revision Case No.520 of 1990. The opposite parties 3 to 10 took the plea that Damodar Mohapatra transferred the disputed land in their favour by an unregistered document conferring permanent sikim rayati right in the year 1932 for a consideration of Rs.60/- and delivered possession. Since then they are residing over the land by constructing their houses. In 1951-52, Damodar Mohapatra filed Mutation Case No.1246 of 1951-52. The Tahasildar rejected the mutation case with an observation that the opposite parties are the permanent occupancy raiyats under the landlord/intermediary. In the year 1963, land was vested with the Government. Opposite parties 3 to 10 filed Vesting Case No.394 of 1964-65 for settlement of the land in their name. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties. The R.I. submitted report in their favour. In the said case, opposite parties were directed to seek their relief under the O.L.R. Act. The O.E.A patta prepared in the name of Balaram Mohapatra is not binding on them as they were not parties to the proceeding. They are continuing in possession since 1931 by paying rent. With this factual scenario, this writ application has been filed.

(3.) Heard Mr. Sankarsan Rath, learned counsel for the petitioners and Miss. Sanjibani Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the opposite parties 1 and 2. None appears for the opposite parties 4 to 10.