SUBASINI PATRA Vs. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed assailing the orders under Annexures-1 and 2 passed by the competent authority under the Regulation-II of 1956.

(2.) Short background involved in the case is that at the first instance, the regulation-II proceeding vide Regulation-II Case No.24 of 1991 was initiated by one Bipin Dehuri against the present petitioner and her husband Banamali Patra. After death of Banamali Patra the petitioner is continuing with the case. One Dasarathi Dehuri for his legal necessity sold the disputed land measuring Ac.0.17 decimals Khata No.71, Plot No.201 in Mouza- Sripadganj in the town of Baripada to the petitioner for consideration of Rs.170/- in the year 1960 by virtue of an oral sale and possession of the land was delivered by the said Dasarathi Dehuri on the date after receiving the consideration amount and from the said date the husband of the petitioner and the petitioner were being occupying the land uninterruptedly for more than 41 years. Subsequently, a sale deed was also executed in the year 1963. The case history further discloses that after about 31 years after the sale of the disputed land and delivery of possession, Bipin Dehuri, S/o-Dasarathi Dehuri filed a Regulation-II Case bearing No.24 of 1991 for restoration of the disputed land on the premises that no such permission was obtained from the competent authority before the sale transaction is conducted. Petitioner appeared before the opposite party No.2 and filed her written objection making her claim that she had perfected her title by way of adverse possession. Regulation-II case No.24 of 1991 was dismissed on the premises that the sale transaction had taken place without having permission of the competent authority. The petitioner preferred Regulation-II appeal No.1 of 1995 before the opposite party No.1 and claimed for setting aside of the order passed by the original authority on the premises of her acquiring the title by way of adverse possession. The appeal was also dismissed confirming the direction of the original authority for restoration of the land in favour of the tribe persons.

(3.) Sri S.S. Das, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner objecting the reason and the findings assigned by both the authorities, submitted that the impugned orders are wrong for being passed in non-consideration of the claim of the petitioner over the disputed property for creation of a right in her favour by virtue of adverse possession and further the development through the R.O.R and the mutation proceeding have also not been taken into consideration by both the authorities. It is under the above premises, Sri S.S. Das, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner contented that both the orders remained bad in law and ought to be interfered with and set aside.