STATE OF ORISSA Vs. HARAPRIYA BISOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS review application is directed against the judgment dated 27.10.2005 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.8282 of 2004. The writ application was filed by the opposite party No.1 for a direction to the petitioners in the review petition as well as the State -opposite parties for declaration of her tenancy right over the land in question and for acceptance of rent in respect of the same and for a further declaration that the State Authorities or its functionaries have no right, title and interest over the land in question and for a further direction not to interfere with her right, title, interest and possession over the land in question. After elaborate hearing, the writ application was allowed and it was held that Kamal Devi was a deemed tenant under Section 8(1) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, who had succeeded by her son Kishore Chandra Pattnaik and, thereafter the petitioner, who purchased the same from Kishore Chandra Pattnaik under a registered sale deed. Having held thus, the Court further restrained the State Authorities and/or its functionaries from interfering with the possession of the opposite party No.1.

(2.) SHRI Palit, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners challenges the correctness of the judgment on the following grounds.

(3.) THE suit land is covered under Sabik Khata No.918 and originally belonged to the ex -Intermediaries Choudhury Chakradhar Mohapatra and others. Choudhury Chakradhar Mohapatra and Ramakrushna Mohapatra were having 12 annas share and another ex -Intermediary Indramani Roul was having 4 annas share. Choudhury Chakradhar Mohapatra and Ramakrushna Mohapatra, who were having 12 annas share, with consent of Indramani Roul granted lease of Ac.15.00 decimals from Sabik Plot No.4047, Ac.13.30 decimals from Sabik Plot No.1726 and Ac.25.65 decimals from Sabik Plot No.1036 under Sabik Khata No.918 in favour of one Smt. Kamala Devi under an unregistered lease deed (Hata Patta) on the 20th of March, 1933 and delivered possession thereof. They also collected rent from Smt. Kamala Devi in respect of the leasehold land. In the year, 1954 the estate of intermediary vested in the State under Section 3 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (in short, "the Act"). On the date of vesting and prior to that, Smt. Kamala Devi was in peaceful possession of the disputed land as a tenant and as such, she became a deemed tenant under the State under Section 8(1) of the Act. The ex -Intermediaries on vesting of the land, submitted Ekapadia in favour of Smt. Kamala Devi in respect of the disputed lands as well as some other lands and accordingly, tenancy ledger was opened through the Tahasildar, Cuttack and rent was collected from Smt. Kamala Devi from 1954 to 1967. In between 1954 to 1967 there was no dispute so far as the tenancy right of Smt. Kamala Devi is concerned. Mouza Gadkan under which the disputed land is located was transferred from Cuttack district to Puri district and, accordingly came under the jurisdiction of the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar. On 4.7.1967, the Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack reported to the S.D.O., Cuttack that the Hata Patta granted by the ex -Intermediaries in favour of Smt. Kamala Devi had been antedated and is a fraudulent one. On the basis of such report, the S.D.O., Cuttack who was the O.E.A. Collector initiated a proceeding under Section 5(i) of the Act against Smt. Kamala Devi. The case was also transferred to the Court of the S.D.O. -cum -O.E.A., Collector, Bhubaneswar after change of jurisdiction. The O.E.A. Collector after inquiry and collecting evidence directed for cancellation of the lease granted in favour of Smt. Kamala Devi by order dated January, 1971. The said order of the O.E.A. Collector cancelling the lease was challenged by Smt. Kamala Devi in appeal and the appeal having been dismissed, she preferred a writ application before this Court in O.J.C. No.8282 of 1974. The said writ application was disposed of on 29th October, 1976 setting aside the order of the O.E.A. Collector as well as the appellate authority and the matter was remitted back to the O.E.A. Collector for fresh hearing. After remand, the O.E.A. Collector disposed of the case on 24th April, 1989 holding that the deed of lease being prior to 1.1.1946 and being a genuine document, Smt. Kamala Devi should be accepted as a tenant, she having remained in possession of only seven acres of land out of the total lease hold lands and rent could be accepted in respect of those seven acres. Holding thus, the O.E.A. Collector sent the records to Member, Board of Revenue for concurrence. During pendency of the matter the Board of Revenue, Smt. Kamala Devi expired and was substituted by her son and legal heir Kishore Chandra Pattnaik. Challenging the order of the O.E.A. Collector dated 24th April, 1989, the said Kishore Chandra Pattnaik filed writ application before this Court in O.J.C. 2063 of 1992 for quashing the order of the O.E.A. Collector as well as the proceeding initiated by the O.E.A. Collector. This Court after hearing held that the O.E.A. Collector having found that the lease deed was prior to 1.1.1946 and was a genuine document, he had no jurisdiction to proceed with the inquiry under the provisions of the Act and the proceeding should have been dropped. The said judgment of this Court was not challenged by the State and, accordingly it had attained finality. Opposite party No.1 is the purchaser of the said land from Shri Kishore Chandra Pattnaik through his power of attorney holder. Since rent was not accepted from the opposite party No.1, a writ application was filed by her vide W.P.(C) No.8282 of 2004 praying for reliefs as stated earlier. This Court in the impugned judgment held that the opposite party No.1 has stepped into the shoes of Kishore Chandra Pattnaik having purchased the land under a registered sale deed and, accordingly, observed that she should be accepted as a tenant and rent should be collected from her and also passed a restraint order directing the State functionaries from interfering with her possession. The judgment passed in the said O.J.C. No.8282 of 2004 disposed of on 27.10.2005 is the subject matter of the review in the present petition.