ABDUL AZIZ Vs. MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner being the purchaser of the land in question in an auction preceding challenges the order passed by the learned Member, Board Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack on 29.02.2000 in Settlement Revision No.116 of 1998 directing for correction of Record of Rights in favour of the opposite party nos.4 to 12.

(2.) The facts are not disputed. Raubha Kirtan Majhi was original recorded tenant of Khata No.130/7 of village Palasapada, PS. Chandahandi, Dist.-Nabarangpur. Rameswar Majhi, the predecessor in interest (father) of opposite party nos.6, 7 and 8 was recorded with respect to Khata No.130/8 of the same village. In both the holdings Ac.6.98 and Ac.4.04 dec., lands were recorded in the name of Raubha Kirtan Majhi and Rameswar Majhi. Certificate cases were initiated with respect to the scheduled property and because of nonpayment of Government loan by one Bhaghirathi Majhi, who is the common ancestor of the parties. Accordingly, as per the orders of the Certificate Officer, Certificate Execution Proceedings no.79/70 C.A.90/79, C.A.80/70, C.A.191/73, BL.201/73 and BL.414/73 were initiated relating to property of late Bhagirathi Majhi. It was held by the Certificate Officer that Bhagirathi Majhi has obtained loan from Government and failed to repay the same. Hence, the properties were auctioned in a certificate proceeding. It is also not disputed that the petitioner was the highest bidder and purchased the property on auction for lawful consideration of Rs. 20,000/-, which was deposited to the Government of Odisha. It is contended that the petitioner is still in possession of the lands in question.

(3.) After above 20 years, the descendents of Bhaghirathi Majhi filed objection case under Section 21(1) of Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', inter alia, alleging that the sale executed by the Certificate Officer is void, illegal and not operative particularly in view of certain judgment passed by this Court. They further claim that they are in possession of the property in question.