SUBHADRA PRADHAN Vs. A D M

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, an Adibasi woman, belonging to G. Udayagiri Subdivision in the district of Phulbani, one of the most undeveloped areas in the State has approached this Court with the application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the appellate authority under Annexure -5 to the writ application and also the order of the competent authority under the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (By Scheduled Tribes) Regulations, 1956 (Orissa Regulation 2 of 1956)(hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulation') under Annexurp -2 to the writ application. Since the controversy in the present proceeding lies within a narrow compass, it is not necessary to deal with the respective cases of the parties in detail. It is sufficient for the present purpose to state that the proceeding under the Regulation was initiated on the application filed by the petitioner against opp. party No 2. The said petition was registered as R. M. C. No 1 of 1979 (13/60).

(2.) THE gist of the case of the petitioner was that the disputed land appearing to plot No. 2377 under Khata No. 727 in village C. Udayagiri belonged to her father. On a portion of the said plot stood a house in which the petitioner's family lived The vacant portion with a cow -shed thereon was leased out to opp. party. No. 2 about 9 years prior to me proceeding on condition that the latter would pay rent to the petitioner's father for the land, Opp party No. 2 paid rent for a few years, but after the death of her father, taking advantage of petitioner's helplessness, stopped paying rent. On demand he refused to vacate the land and continued in unauthorised occupation thereof The petitioner therefore sought the help of the competent authority under the Regulation for restoration of possession of the property to her. Admittedly, the petitioner belongs to a scheduled tribe being 'Kandha' by caste while opp. party No. 2 belongs to a non -scheduled tribe being Brahmin by caste.

(3.) THE hearing of the case was taken up by the Revenue Officer, Balliguda Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in suoport of their case. It appears from the records that the Revenue Officer also held a local inspection of the disputed property. The hearing of the case was taken up on several dates, ail at C. Udayagiri. The case was posted to several dates, for delivery of orders and finally the order was pronounced on 18th of April, 1981 by the Revenue Officer at Balliguda. The authority dropped the proceeding and directed the petitioner to seek redress in the proper Court of law to establish her right, title and interest over the disputed land Against the aforesaid order the petitioner filed an appeal, R. M. A. No. 4 of 1981 (Regulation) which was disposed of by the Addl. Dist. Magistrate, Boudh -Khandmal, Phulbani, by order dated 31 -12 -.1981 (Annexure -5). The appellate authority dismissed the appeal at the stage of adnission solely on the ground that it was barred by limitation. It is pertinent to note hare that though the appellant -petitioner contended that the appeal was within time, by way of abundant caution, she filed an application for condonation of delay.