ABHIMANYU MALLIK Vs. BAIDHAR JENA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order under Annexure-3 passed by the Revisional Authority under the OLR Act vide O.L.R. Revision No.51 of 1985.

(2.) Short background involved in this case is that the petitioner claiming to be a tenant under the original landlord filed OLR Case No.3/82 under Section 15(b) of the OLR Act claiming his tenancy right in respect of Khata No.173, Plot No.707, area Acre0.37 decimals as against the opposite party No.2 who is a subsequent purchaser of the aforesaid property. Petitioner also alleged in the OLR Case that the claim of sale by the opposite party No.1 is a clandestine sale in order to oust the petitioner from his right. In substantiating his case, the petitioner further submitted that he was not only a tenant under the opposite party No.2 but he was also going on paying the rent regularly which was being collected by her husband. The opposite party No.1 claimed that his father was a Bhaga tenant under the opposite party No.2 and after he purchased the land by way of registered sale deed dated 22.9.1982, he became the owner of the disputed property. The opposite party No.1 seriously disputed the claim of the petitioner continuing as a tenant under the opposite party No.2. The proceeding was registered as OLR Case No.3/82. An inquiry report was called for pending finalization of the proceeding and upon spot visit after recording the evidence of as many as eight witnesses, a report as appearing at page No.9 of the brief was submitted indicating therein that the petitioner is staying over the disputed plot by constructing a house and he is also cultivating the land. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and after going through the evidence collected in the inquiry process, the original authority rejected the claim of the petitioner, for which the petitioner preferred an appeal which was registered as OLR Appeal Case No.25 of 1983. This appeal was allowed on contest holding the petitioner to be a tenant over the disputed property.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, the present opposite party No.1 filed a revision, which was registered as OLR Revision Case No.51 of 1985, on the file of opposite party No.5. The revision was heard on merit and by the impugned order, the Revisional Authority while allowing the revision, came to hold that the application under section 15 (1) (b) of the OLR Act was not maintainable. While reiterating his stand taken before the Original Authority, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he has a strong case in view of the report submitted before the original authority as available at page 9 of the brief so also following the statement of the witnesses recorded during such investigation clearly establishing that the petitioner is staying over the disputed land by constructing a house.