CHINTAMONI DAS Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD further argument from the parties, hearing is concluded and the judgment is as follows.

(2.) SRI Madhusudan Jena, son of Krutibas Jena, opposite party No. 1 in this writ petition filed application under Section 9(3) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (in short Consolidation Act') with the prayer to record the disputed property of Consolidation Plot Nos. 17 and 43 respectively measuring Ac. 0.20 decimals and Ac. 0.22 decimals in his favour on the ground that the said property belongs to his family, his late father Krutibas executed a deed of mortgage (it should be deed of security) for a loan taken from Chintamoni Das, who was opposite party in that claim case and that the registered sale deed of the year 1971 be construed accordingly and, apart from that, the objector remained in possession of the property all throughout asserting his right and interest over the same.

(3.) IN course of the enquiry conducted by the Consolidation Officer it was brought on record that after execution of the registered sale deed in the year 1971, application for mutation was filed by Chintamoni in 1984 vide Misc. Case No. 2120 of 1984 of the Court of Tahsildar, Soro. After field enquiry and enquiry in the Mutation Court on 25.10.1986, order was passed by learned Tahsildar stating that title was not conveyed through the registered sale deed of the year 1971 and the recorded tenant of the land, i.e., Madhusudan Jena and his family members are in possession of the disputed property. Accordingly he rejected the application for mutation. It was admitted by the parties that Chintamoni appealed against that order before the Sub -Divisional Officer, Balasore and learned S.D.O. set aside the aforesaid order of the Tahsildar and remanded the case for fresh disposal. Thereafter the Tahsildar did not take up the case for fresh disposal until Consolidation Operation started. The Objector also filed documents in proof of payment of rent of the disputed property and also made oral statement in support of his possession and asserting title thereby. Opposite party (Chintamoni) relied on the sale deed and also made oral statement. Considering the same learned Consolidation Officer on 30,11.1993 allowed the application of the Objector, i.e., Madhusudan Jena and directed to maintain the record in his name by scoring through the name of Chintamoni Das from the draft record.