NABAGHANA SETHY Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed assailing the impugned order vide Annexure-4 passed by the Revisional Authority in Revision Case No.204/97 in exercise of power under Sec. 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 hereinafter called as the Act.

(2.) Short background involved in this case is that in the 1927-28 settlement operation the disputed land was recorded in the name of one Nidhi Pradhan in stitiban status. Said Nidhi Pradhan is the father of Narottam and Baidhar and Bansidhar. Narottam being dead is represented by his legal heirs-opposite party No.2(a) to 2(e) 1965-66. Not final settlement and land records all stood in favour of Nidhi Pradhan and ancestors. 78-79 attestation record continued to be in the name of successors in interest of Nidhi Pradhan. The consolidation authorities prepared records in the name of Bikei Sethi following the orders passed in the Objection Case No.995 of 1991 being allowed in his favour by virtue of a registered sale deed No.2005 dated 13.8.1985. It is contended that in the year 1995 a denovo consolidation operation took place and as per the direction of the Director, Consolidation, the suit land was erroneously recorded in the name of Bikei Sethi. It is at this stage, Narottam Pradhan, the predecessor of the opposite party No.2 filed objection Case No.1094/318 under Sec. 9(3) of the Act on 18.10.1995 praying therein to record the suit land in his name. The C.O. in his order dated 30.1.1996 disallowed the claim of Narottam with the observation that the suit village was finally published under Sec. 22 of the Act in the year 1988 in Registered Relinquishment Deed No.774 dated 11979. The objector admitted that though the last settlement records were prepared in the name of Nidhi Pradhan but the said Nidhi Pradhan was not in possession. Nidhi's father did not also possess the same in order to avoid the future litigations. The entire land extending Ac.11.30 decimals has been relinquished in favour of Hari Hara and others without any consideration money and thus Narottam also lost his title over the suit land. Against this order of the C.O. the predecessor of the opposite party No.2(a) to 2(e), the original opposite party No.2, filed an appeal bearing No.122 of 1996 before the Deputy Director, Bhubaneswar. The matter was remanded to the C.O., Nimapada for fresh adjudication under the premises that the matter has been concluded without giving opportunity of hearing to the objector. The C.O. again decided the matter deciding the case against the objector. An appeal was carried bearing appeal case No.239/1996. The Deputy Director by his order dated 29.3.1997 disallowed it observing that the present petitioner was possessing the suit land as his residential house for more than 20 years. Accordingly, the present petitioner accrued his right over the disputed property through adverse possession. Consequently, the opposite party No.2 initiated a revision under Sec. 36 of the Act. The revision was also allowed in favour of the opposite party No.2 resulting the present writ petition.

(3.) Case of the present petitioner as stood allthrough is that in the 1910-11, the suit land measuring an area of Ac.11.30 dec. was recorded in the name of Kurtibas Pradhan and others. Kurtibas entered into a nominal transaction with Nidhi Pradhan alienating the entire extent of land vide registered deed dated 16.2.1911 when Kurtibas and others were in all actual possession of the land and were paying rent even after execution of the aforesaid deed. On 19.2.1979 the registered deed of relinquishment was executed in favour of Hari Hara, Daitari and Mahadeva and others, the sons and grandsons of the said Kurtibas and others in respect of the suit land by Narottam. The successor in interest of Nidhi Pradhan with an indication of relinquishment deed that the suit property was wrongly recorded in the name of Nidhi Pradhan and there cannot be confirmation of any title on the basis of a Sham transaction. It is claimed that the suit property failed in favour of the Hari Hara in a family partition. Hence, he fought the objection case and got the land recorded in his name. The present opposite party No.2 even though was a party to the Objection Case No.800 of 1979 chose to remain silent even after due service of notice. In the meantime, Hari Hara executed registered sale deed No.2005/13 dated 19.1995 in favour of Bikei. The father of the present petitioner and Bikei Sethy filed objection case No.995/1991 for recording the suit land in his name, which was allowed in favour of Bikei Sethy taking into consideration the registered sale deed executed by Hari Hara Pradhan.