TEMBURU RAMESH Vs. COLLECTOR, GAJAPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition challenge has been made to the order dated 19th November, 1994 passed by the Collector, Gajapati in Regulation Appeal No.1 of 1990 dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appellants and their successors -in -interest were found to be in unauthorized occupation of the schedule land and directing the Tahasildar to evict them from the disputed land and restore the possession to the present opposite party No.3 who is the successor -in -interest of the recorded land holder under the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (By Scheduled Tribes) Regulations, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "Regulation 1956").

(2.) THE facts of the case are as follows :

(3.) THE learned counsel for opposite party No.3, on the other hand, submitted that the findings of the Officer -on -Special Duty as well as the Collector, Gajapati in a proceeding under Section 3(2) of a Regulation 1956 are findings of fact and this Court normally should not interfere with the said findings of fact. He submitted that the petitioners have not explained the delay in filing the writ petition after the disposal of Regulation Appeal No.1 of 1990 in the year 1994. Annexure -5 is the copy of the statement of opposite party No.3 recorded in a subsequent proceeding initiated suo -motu by the Officer -on -Special Duty in the year 1995 and the said statement shall not be taken into consideration in the present proceeding as the same was not connected with the present proceeding and the deponent did not get any scope to explain such statement in this proceeding as the statement was not put to him specifically. He further submitted that the so -called Xerox copy of the un registered sale deed was not a document to show that the land was transferred in absence of original owner. The document neither specified the area of the disputed land nor did it mention the specific plot or the khata number. The said document did not show that the possession was delivered to the purchaser. Therefore, the said document was not a valid document for transfer of the land. Hence, the same should be ignored. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.