BACHHA ROUT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jagatsinghpur in R.F.A. No. 22 of 2007 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kujanga in C.S. No. 78 of 2004.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the trial court.

(3.) Plaintiff's case is that the suit land under Khata no. 129, Chaka No. 117, plot no. 132 measuring Ac. 0.83 decimals which is a part of the total land extending to Ac. 1.66 decimals in mouza Baidigadi stood jointly recorded in the name of Laxmi Gochhayat and Kalyani Gochhayat as per the Consolidation Record of Right published on 20.04.1983. It is the case that Laxmi Gochhayat died leaving behind her son and daughters arraigned as defendant no. 3 to 5. It is stated that, the plaintiff being the sister's son of defendant no. 6 was treated by her as her foster son. The defendant no. 6 sold the suit land in favour of the plaintiff after obtaining necessary permission from the Tahasildar as required under section 34(3) of the OCH and PFL Act, 1972 (hereinafter for short, called as 'the Act'). The defendant no. 6 for the purpose then executed a registered sale-deed on 30.10.1989 on receipt of valuable consideration followed by delivery of possession to the knowledge of the defendants and all other concerned. Pursuant to the said purchase, the plaintiff claims to have mutated the suit land in his favour in Mutation Case No. 2125 of 1995 and thus as its owner is in possession of the same. After sometime the Collector, Jagatsinghpur in Consolidation Misc. Case No. 02 of 1997 initiated at the behest of Laxmi Gochhayat, the predecessor-in-interest of defendant no. 3 to 5, the co-tenant in respect of the land under Khata no. 129 declared, the sale-deed standing in favour of the plaintiff as void with further direction for eviction. It is, thus urged that such order is illegal and has been passed in violation of principles natural justice, equity and fair play, especially when there has been no challenge by defendant no. 6, the executants of the said sale-deed. In view of said order as the defendant no. 3 to 5 threatened the plaintiff to dispossess him from suit land, the present suit has been filed.