LADU MOHAPATRA Vs. ANANDA MISRA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the plaintiff. The suit was for recovery of possession and permanent injunction.

(2.) Case of the plaintiff was that the suit land was recorded in the name of Biswanath Mishra and 32 others in 1932 settlement. Each co-sharer had 1/33 share in the said land. The land was in possession of all the co-sharers. Status of the suit land was Brahmottar Tanki. After introduction of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act ('OEA Act'), the land vested in the State free from all encumbrances in the year 1963. While the matter stood thus, all the co-sharers authorised the defendant No. 1 to approach the O.E.A., Collector, Nayagarh for settlement of land under Section 7 of the OEA Act. Defendant No. 1 filed an application for settlement of the land in his own name without impleading the other co-sharers. The same was registered as Vesting Case No. 4769 of 1964. Notice was not served on them. They were not aware of the said case. On 3.4.1965, the O.E.A Collector settled the land in favour of defendant No. 1. While the matter stood thus, defendant No. 1 sold Ac.0.29 dec. out of Ac.8.82 dec. to Harihar Mohapatra on 24.10.1970 by means of a registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs. 200/-. Defendant No. 1 had also sold Schedule-B land to defendant No. 2, Schedule-C land to Ghanashyam Mohapatra on 3.1974, and Schedule-D land to Udayanath Misra on 31.5.1976. The sale deeds are void, since on the date of sale defendant No. 1 had no subsisting interest in the suit land. The purchasers forcefully entered into the suit land. With this factual scenario, he filed the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

(3.) Defendants 1 to 3 filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It was pleaded that the defendant No. 1 made an application under Section 7 of the OEA Act. Notice was duly published in the village by beat of drum. All the villagers were aware of the same. No objection was filed. The land was settled in his name. Neither the plaintiff nor any other co-sharers preferred appeal. The settlement of land in favour of defendant No. 1 on 4.1965 attained finality. The suit is barred under Section 39 of the OEA Act. Defendant No. 1 was the owner of the suit land. He sold Ac.0.29 dec. to Harihar Mohapatra on 22.10.1970. Defendant No. 1 and Harihar Mohapatra had sold Schedule-B land to Laxman Mishra for a valid consideration of Rs. 3500/-. Schedule-C land was sold to Ghanashyam Mohapatra for a valid consideration. Schedule-D was sold to Udayanath Misra for a valid consideration. As the entire villagers raised voice against him, he agreed to give 1/33 share to each branch. It was decided that the land would be put to auction in the village and the highest bidder would take the same. The consideration amount would be equally divided among 33 share holders. The auction was held in the year 197 Schedule-B land was put to auction. As the defendant nos. 2 to 4 were highest bidders, the villagers agreed to accept the bid amount. Therefore, the entire money of Rs. 4435/- was kept with the plaintiff. It was decided that after registration, the registration ticket would be kept with the plaintiff, who after giving delivery of possession of the respective shares would distribute the amount. Registrations were made by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants 2 to 4. After purchase, defendant nos. 2 and 3 made considerable improvement by spending huge amount.