SANATAN ACHARYA Vs. TAHASILDAR, PANPOSH & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition seeks for a direction to quash order dated 12.03.2014 passed by the Tahasildar, Panposh district Sundargarh in Misc. Case No.1 of 2014 pursuant to the direction of the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur dated 07.07.2012 in R.P. Case No.240 of 2012.

(2.) The admitted facts in nut shell is that one Sanatana Acharya, the petitioner, who is a displaced person of village Tumkela due to acquisition of his land during 1954 -55 for establishment of Rourkela Steel Plant, made an application on 04.06.1956 for lease of house site and agricultural land in village Kuanarmunda. Accordingly, Lease Case No.71/1956 -57 was initiated. After following due procedure of law, the S.D.O., Panposh granted lease of an area measuring Ac.1.50 decimal out of Sabik Plot No.706/4, Khata No.250, Kisam house site. Since then, the petitioner remained in possession of the land leased out in his favour exercising his right thereon. The Settlement Operation in village Kuanarmunda started in the year 1963 -64. The petitioner could not take appropriate step in the Settlement proceeding to record the leasehold land in his name. The leasehold land of the petitioner was bifurcated into Hal Plot Nos.1240 and 1240/3176 measuring an area Ac.0.86 decimal and Ac.0.64 decimal respectively and recorded in Hal Khata No.397 (for short, 'the case land'). In the Hal Settlement, the case land was recorded in favour of the State Government reflecting possession of one Minaketan Padhi and Surendra Kumar Singhdeo in the remarks column. The petitioner subsequently filed Mutation Case No.493/96 to record the case land in his name on the basis of the lease granted in his favour. The Tahasildar, Kuanarmunda rejected the Mutation Case due to lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner filed RP Case No.240of 2012 under Section 15(b) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1953 (for short the 'OSS Act'). The R.P. Case was disposed of vide order dated 07.07.2012 by the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur (for short, 'the Additional Commissioner') with a direction to the Tahasildar, Kuanarmunda to record the case land in the name of the petitioner on Rayati status with usual and equitable rent after deletion of the note made in the remarks column and to give effect to the order both in map and in record. However, the Tahasildar, Panposh, Kuanarmunda did not take any step for correction of record of right pursuant to the direction of the Additional Commissioner in RP Case No.240 of 2012. As such, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.19951 of 2013 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 29.11.2013 with a direction to the Tahasildar, Panposh to take a decision on the application of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Accordingly, the petition filed by the petitioner for correction of ROR was registered as Misc. Case No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Tahasildar, Panposh. The case was adjourned to different dates and finally vide order dated 13.03.2014, Tahasildar, Panposh (O.P. No.1) rejected the Misc. Case No.1 of 2014 on the ground that the petitioner was never in possession over the case land. Thus, this writ petition has been filed assailing the said order.

(3.) Mr.N.K.Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the averments made in Writ petition submitted that vide Lease Case No.71/1956 -57, the case land was leased out in favour of the petitioner. The Settlement proceeding was initiated in village Kuanarmunda in the year 1963 -64. By that time, the petitioner was residing at Rourkela as he had got an appointment in Rourkela Steel Plant under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. Thus, he could not take appropriate step with regard to the case land in his name. However, during attestation stage of the Settlement operation in the year, 1968, the Settlement Authority reflected possession of the petitioner in respect of the case land with effect from 1962. However, the final ROR in respect of the case land was published in the name of the State Government reflecting note of possession in the name of said Minaketan Padhi and Surendra Kumar Singhdeo in the remarks column. Mr.Sahu referring to the averments made in paragraph -17 of the Counter Affidavit submitted that Sri Minaketan Padhi in course of hearing of Misc. Case No.1 of 2014 had given declaration in writing that he was not in possession of Plot No.1240 as reflected in the remarks column of the ROR. He further submitted that pursuant to initiation of Misc. Case No.1 of 2014, the Tahasildar directed the R.I. to make enquiry and submit a report with regard to the field position. During field enquiry, one Haribansh Padhi raised objection to the effect that he was encroaching the possession of the suit land since long and was in cultivating possession over the same. He also filed a petition on 20.02.2014 to the effect before opposite party No.1. However, at paragraph -10 of the Counter Affidavit, it was specifically admitted by opposite parties 1 to 4 that an Encroachment Case bearing No.7 of 2007 was initiated against two sons of said Haribansh Padhi, namely, J.Padhi and S.Padhi. Subsequently, eviction order was passed against than and the R.I., Kuanarmunda submitted his report on 30.11.2007 to the effect that they were evicted from the case land. Thus, the finding of opposite party No.1 in the impugned order that the petitioner was not in possession over the suit land is not correct. Mr.Sahu further submitted that opposite party No.1 has no jurisdiction or competence to sit over the direction given by the Additional Commissioner (O.P. No.2). He has to implement the order in its letter and spirit. Thus, the opposite party No.1 passed the impugned order exceeding his jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, Mr.Sahu prayed to quash the impugned order under Annexure -12.