MAGUNI CHANDRA DWIBEDY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question involved in this case whether the Petitioner is entitled to settlement of the disputed land under Section 5 of the Orissa Merged Territories (Village Offices Abolition) Act, 1963 (Orissa Act 10 of 1963) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The disputed land, 3.35 acres in extent, under Sabik Plot No. 201 corresponding to Hal Plot Nos. 411, 413 and 414 in mouza Mahulpali was a part of bhogra lands held by the Petitioner, the erstwhile Ganju of village Mahulpali, which is now a part of the town of Rourkela. The Act was extended to the area in question on 1 -4 -1966. Thereafter Revenue Misc. Case No. 61 of 1966 -67 was started before the Tahasildar; Panposh for settlement of bhogra lands with the Petitioner as provided under the Act. The proceeding having been disposed of by the authorities not to the satisfaction of the Petitioner he approached this Court in Civil Revision Nos. 365, 371 and 379 of 1976 which were disposed of on 20 -9 -1978. The disputed property in the present case was the subject matter of Civil Revision No. 371 of 1978. This Court remanded the proceeding to the Tahasildar for fresh enquiry and disposal according to law.

(2.) AFTER remand the Tahasildar called upon the Petitioner to substantiate his claim for settlement by adducing evidence. He also gave opportunities to the State Government in the Works Department since it was refuting the claim of actual cultivating possession of the disputed land by the Petitioner on the appointed date. The Tahasildar on consideration of the evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that the disputed land was not in separate and actual cultivating possession of the Petitioner immediately before the appointed date and hence his claim for settlement could not be accepted. This decision has been upheld by the Addl. District Magistrate in first appeal and also by the Board of Revenue in second appeal. Hence this revision petition by the Petitioner under the provisions of Section 13(3)(a) of the Act.

(3.) BEFORE proceeding to consider the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner it would be helpful to quote Section 13(3) of the Act so that the scope of this revision petition may be kept in view: