JOGESWAR MAJHI Vs. RAMIA KISAN ALIAS LAKRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner calls in question the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Sundargarh (opposite party No. 2) in Revenue Appeal No. 1 of 1991 under Section 3(3) of Regulation 2/1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulation') reversing the order passed by the Sub-Collector, Sundargarh in Revenue Misc. Case No. 24 of 1984 whereby the original authority had directed for restoration of possession to the present petitioner.

(2.) The essential facts which are necessary for disposal of the writ application may be stated thus :-The present petitioner, Jogeswar Majhi instituted Revenue Misc. Case No. 24 of 1984 before the Sub-Collector, Sundargarh claiming restoration of possession from one Ramia Kishan @ Lakra, opposite party No. 1, in the present writ application. A show cause was filed by the opposite party therein indicating that he had not purchased the suit land situated at village Korgaon, Khata No. 150 and Plot Nos. 702 and 703. A report was called for through the Revenue Inspector. On the date of hearing the opposite party was absent and the Sub-Collector on perusal of the report of the Revenue Inspector and the show cause filed by the opposite party allowed the application and directed the Tahasildar to restore possession to the petitioner therein.The opposite party, Ramia Kishan preferred Revenue Appeal No. 1/91 before the Addl. District Magistrate, under Section 3(3) of the Regulation. The appellant therein contended that the Sub-Collector had passed an absolute cryptic order without discussing the relevant law in the field and properly appreciating the tenor of the show cause submitted by him. It was also canvassed before the appellate authority that Sections 3 and 3(A) of the Regulations are not applicable if both the parties belong to the Schedule Tribe. The other submission which was putforth before the appellate forum is that the appellant had perfected title by way of adverse possession. The appellate authority came to hold that neither Section 3 nor Section 3(A) was applicable and the application filed before the Sub-Collector was misconceived. He further held that the appellant therein had not perfected his title by way of adverse possession. He also arrived at the conclusion that the order passed by the SubCollector was cryptic, and adequate opportunity had not been afforded to the contesting party to substantiate his claim. On the basis of the aforesaid analysis he allowed the appeal and directed that possession should be given back to the appellant as the same had already been taken in pursuance of the order passed by the Sub-Collector as reflected in the report dated 28-11-90 submitted by the Revenue Inspector, Kutra. The said order is the cause of grievance of the present petitioner.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Sub-Collector who has supported the order passed by him.