MANORAMA DAS Vs. HARI @ HRUSIKESH SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.4.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar in T.S. No.11 of 1993 accepting the report of the survey knowing commissioner which was confirmed by the learned Ad hoc Addl. District, Khurda in Civil Revision No.14 of 2003.

(3.) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 filed one written statement and defendant No.3 filed a separate written statement but after the amendment of the plaint, they filed additional written statement jointly. They admitted the plaint case in respect of grant of lease of suit plots in favour of the plaintiff, her husband and defendant No.3 but they challenged the maintainability of the suit stating that defendant No.1 had taken lease of Ac.0.500 dec. of land out of C.S. Plot No.60 in Waste Land Lease Case No.1420 of 1982 resulting in carving of fraction plot No.60/997 under khata No.195/16 which situates adjoining north of defendant No.3s land i.e. plot No.60/992 and accordingly defendant No.1 was in possession thereof raising cashewnut trees, green fence of Siju, Amari and Begunia towards southern side leaving some portion for future homestead purpose. Adjoining north of the aforesaid land of defendant No.1 situates the plaintiffs plots and adjoining north thereof situates the plot of her husband. Defendants in the additional written statement stated that at the 'Kistiwari stage of Hal settlement operation the situation of plot Nos.60/992, 60/997, 60/998, 60/999 and 60/996 were correctly maintained as per record and map of the waste land lease cases. But in 'Khanapuri stage, plaintiff colluded with the settlement officials and by manipulation got Ac.0.050 decs. deducted from Sabik Plot No.60/992 and got it included in Plot No.60/998 and 60/999. Accordingly, situation and position of plot No.60/996 was changed and the said plot was renumbered as Hal Plot Nos.134, 136 and 134/1475 and recorded in favour of the plaintiff and her husband. Coming to know about such manipulation and deliberate error, defendants objected before the Settlement authority in pursuance of which settlement Amin submitted his report after actual measurement of the field. During the hearing of the said objection, plaintiff having informed about the pendency of the suit, the settlement authority did not take any action on the objection of the defendants. They further stated that the suit land is part of plot No.60/997 belonging to defendant No.1 and plaintiff instituted the suit with an intention to grab the suit plot.