LAWS(ORI)-2017-9-65

SK TALIM ALI Vs. COLLECTOR, JAJPUR & OTHERS

Decided On September 11, 2017
Sk Talim Ali Appellant
V/S
Collector, Jajpur And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition involves a challenge to the order passed by the Sub-Collector, Jajpur involving Misc. Appeal No.20/2013, where while allowing the said Appeal, the SubCollector has declared the grant of Residence Certificate in favour of the petitioner by the Tahasildar, Rasulpur as illegal.

(2.) Assailing the impugned order, Sri Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the document, vide Annexure- 7, a draft khatian involving the father of the petitioner, submitted that as per the information available from this document, the father of the petitioner belongs to Brahmabarada. Referring to the document, vide Annexure-9, the sale deed involving the father of the petitioner, Sri Nayak submitted that for the disclosure therein, this document again establishes that the father of the petitioner belongs to Brahmabarada. Further referring to the report given by the R.I., vide Annexure-J/4 to the counter, Sri Nayak submitted that the R.I. upon spot verification submitted a report with a clear indication that the petitioner is a temporary resident of Brahmabarada. Referring to Form-III under Rule 3 of the Orissa Miscellaneous Certificate Rules, 1984, Sri Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the requirement involved therein, the petitioner was required only to give the information regarding his ordinary residence. Under the circumstance, Sri Nayak submitted that since the Residence Certificate granted in favour of the petitioner was in result of an enquiry and dependent on the document referred to herein above, there was no infirmity in the Residence Certificate in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) In his opposition, Sri P.K.Rath, learned counsel for O.P.4, taking this Court to the series of documents available at Pages-59, 62, 67, 71, 73 and 89 of the brief and placing the information available therein submitted that all these documents clearly establish that the petitioner is normally a resident of Chandapur. Not only that the petitioner is even involved in participating in the Palli Sabha meeting of Grama-Chandapur that apart the petitioner is already a seconder in the nomination paper being filed by the candidate concerning the Grama Panchayat Election of Chandapur. Further referring to the document at page- 71 of the brief, Sri Rath contended that Nazma Khatun being the wife of the petitioner has taken financial assistance from the Government for the house damage due to flood, being the resident of Chandapur under Maheswarpur Grama Panchayat. It is on the basis of the above, Sri Rath, learned counsel for O.P.4 submitted that the appellate court taking into consideration all these documents has taken a decision reversing the order of the Tahasildar granting the Residence Certificate in favour of the petitioner. It is for the availability of sufficient materials to establish that the petitioner is a resident of Chandapur and for the indication in the report submitted by the R.I. that the petitioner is sometime a resident in the Village-Brahmabarada, the Sub-Collector, Jajpur has a conclusive satisfaction on the residence of the petitioner, and therefore, even though the appellate authority has observed regarding no proper consideration by the Tahasildar but for the series of materials available establishing the claim of the petitioner, there is no illegality in the ultimate order of the Sub-Collector in setting aside the order passed by the Tahasildar and thereafter rightly declined the grant of Residence Certificate in favour of the petitioner as bad.