NABI DEI (DEAD) Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 05.07.1993 passed by the Tahasildar-cum-OEA Collector, Pipili in OEA Case (Misc.) No.45 of 1979 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to recognize her as a tenant under Section 8(1) of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act,1951 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) The case land appertains to Khata No.132, Plot No.19 and Plot No.29 to an extent of Ac.2.94 decimal which corresponds to Khata No.160, Plot Nos.63 and 56 to an extent of Ac.2.88 decimal of 1966 Settlement. In the Settlement of 1927, the case land stood recorded in favour of the Ruler of Paralakhemundi under Anabadi Khata in Mouza: Jamalpur Kothabada under Pipil Tahasil in the district of Puri. The same was a part of Parala Estate (ex-intermediary). It is the case of the petitioner that she was inducted as a tenant by the ex-intermediary in the year 1943 and continued to pay rent to the ex-intermediary till the estate vested to the State in the year 1953. After vesting, the exintermediary submitted Jamabandi register showing the petitioner to be in possession over the case land at the time of vesting as a tenant. Basing upon the said Jamabandi register, rent was accepted from the petitioner from 1956 to 1960 and again from 1976 to 1981 (Annexure-3 series) by the Thasildar recognizing her as a tenant. The case land was wrongly recorded in favour of Government of Odisha in the ROR published in the year 1966. Thus, the petitioner filed an application on 05.09.1979 before the Tahasildar, Pipili for correction of the record and to accept the rent from her, which was registered as OEA Case (Misc.) No.45/79. The Tahasildar, Pipili observing the formalities settled the land in favour of the petitioner vide his order dated 23.04.1980 and issued direction to receive rent from her. Accordingly, the petitioner paid rent as under Annexure-3 series. Assailing the same, one Choudhury Sachidananda Das and Kumar Biswal (opposite parties 3 and 4 herein) filed OEA Lease Appeal Case No.25/80. The petitioner raised objection to the effect that they are strangers to the case land and due to enmity between the two families, the appeal has been filed. The petitioner further raised objection with regard to maintainability of the appeal as the order impugned therein was an order under Section 8(1) of the Act. The Appellate Authority (Sub-Divisional Officer, Puri) without considering the objection of the petitioner set aside the same vide his order dated 30.08.1986. Thus, the petitioner filed OJC No.3078 of 1986 challenging the said order dated 30.08.1986 passed in OEA Appeal Case No.25/80. This Court considering the rival contentions of the parties remanded the matter to the Tahasildar vide order dated 09.08.1991 with the following observation:-

(3.) The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed their counter affidavit to the writ petition and contended that pursuant to the direction of this Court under Annexure-4, the Tahasildar made a detailed scrutiny of the matter and conducted a detailed enquiry. During course of enquiry, the petitioner was specifically asked to produce the following documents:-