PURNA CHANDRA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application challenge has been made to the order dated 28.5.2005 passed by the Sub -Collector, Puri in O.L.R. Appeal No.2 of 2004 wherein the petitioners appeal was rejected.

(2.) THE facts of the case are as follows : One Minas Behera, son of Joseph Behera was a recorded tenant of Plot No.255 under Khata No.104 measuring an area Ac.0.10 decimal as per the 1927 -28 Settlement R.O.R., which is annexed as Annexure -2. One Irfan Behera misrepresenting himself as son of Joseph Behera and in a surreptitious manner managed to record his name in respect of the suit land in 1966 Settlement. Neither Irfan Behera belongs to the family of Minas Behera nor is he the successor of the recorded tenant. However, he claimed himself as the successor of Joseph Behera and alienated the suit land by a fake and frivolous sale deed executed in favour of one Ashalata Rout in the year 1986. Jiten Behera is the only son of Minas Behera, the recorded tenant. Irfan Behera was no way connected with the family of Minas Behera. The Tahasildar -cum -Revenue Officer, Pipili enquired into the facts and gave a certificate that Jiten Behera is the only son of Minas Behera as per the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules.

(3.) THE law is well settled that a person aggrieved by an order, even though he was not a party to such a proceeding, can file an appeal and in the present case, the petitioner has filed such an appeal. It reveals that the order passed by the Tahasildar, Pipili under Section 9(1)(A) of the Act was not exercised only because a xerox copy cannot take the place of an authenticated copy. The petitioner who purchased the property from the successor of the recorded tenant was not heard in the matter and no record was available in the said office. In pursuance of order dated 8.2.2006 of this Court to produce the record, the Tahasildar filed an affidavit on 10.7.2008 before this Court stating therein that there was a ransacking in the office of the Tahasildar on 3.10.1996 for which most of the case records with vested interest were destroyed and the said affidavit is contrary to the observation made by the Sub -Collector in 2005 that a couple of years back the office of the Tahasildar was ransacked for which records were not available. The appellate Court, without taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and without following proper procedure and dealing with the above said questions raised by the appellant regarding the fraudulent misrepresentation by which the land was recorded in the name of Gandharba Panda, simply accepted the case of the respondent without any Lower Court Record and dismissed the appeal without going into merits of the case as the counsel for the appellant had not filed any written argument. The order passed by the Sub -Collector, Puri in O.L.R. Appeal No.2 of 2004, if allowed to stand, will cause grave injustice to the petitioner.