STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER Vs. RAHASMANI SAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are the appellants against a confirming judgment.

(2.) The respondent as plaintiff instituted T.S. No.34 of 1984-I in the court of the learned Sub-Judge, Balasore for declaration of right, title and interest and permanent injunction impleading the appellants as defendants. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property originally belonged to Harendra Narayan Ray, ex-intermediary. It was a big tank. The same was recorded under Anabadi khata. In course of time, the tank was silted up and fit for cultivation. The ex-intermediary granted amalanama pata in favour of her husband on payment of salami on 15.5.1946. Her husband reclaimed the land and used to pay rent to the ex-intermediary. The land vested in the State in the year 1953. The exintermediary had not submitted rafa (rent schedule) in favour of her husband, as a result of which, the land was recorded wrongly as Anabadi land. Thereafter she filed an application before the Tahasildar, Balasore for fixation of rent, which was registered as R.F. case no.513 of 1966. In the said case, rent schedule was issued in her favour in the year 1969. Arrear as well as current rent was collected from her. She was in peaceful possession of the suit land. While the matter stood thus, the Tahasildar, Balasore, defendant no.2, initiated Misc. Case No.1 of 1983 against her for cancellation of rent schedule. Notice was issued to her on 1.10.1983 for show-cause. She appeared and sought for an adjournment. But then without affording any opportunity, the defendant no.2 cancelled the rent schedule on 27.7.67. It is pleaded that her husband was a settled raiyat. He was in cultivation and possession of the same. With this factual scenario, the suit has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

(3.) Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The specific case of the defendants is that on a public petition filed by the public, misc. case no.1 of 1983 was initiated by the Tahasildar, Balasore. It was ascertained that T.L. page-481 of village Nupur was opened for the disputed land in favour of the plaintiff during the year 1978-79 on the strength of forged rent schedule quoting R.F. No.513 of 1966. Rent in respect of the said T.L. was realized for the first time on 279 with retrospective effect from 1953-54. From the relevant case register, it appeared that the said R.F. case did not relate to the disputed land nor the land of the plaintiff. An opportunity was provided to the plaintiff to show-cause as to why the aforesaid rent schedule should not be deemed to be a forged piece of paper and T.L. opened on the strength of so-called rent schedule would not be cancelled. Neither she produced any documents nor filed any written statement. It was held that the above said rent schedule with fictitious R.F. case no.513 of 1966 was a forged one. The T.L. opened on the strength of the same was cancelled under orders of Collector, Balasore vide District Office Letter No.11037/Rev. dated 212.8 As per ROR of 1927, the classification of disputed land are "Tank" and Tank-Adi and Puruna Padia. The same vested in the State during the year 1953-54 free from all encumbrances under Section 5(a) of the O.E.A. Act. The disputed tank was never in possession of the plaintiff. It was a public tank and its water is being used by the public till date. The Government is the paramount owner of the land. The plaintiff cannot claim any raiyati right over the same on the strength of the receipts with "without prejudice" mark, granted in her favour on the basis of the T.L. opened on a forged and fabricated rent schedule with fictitious R.F. case no.513 of 1966.