SANTILATA LENKA AND OTHERS Vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF SETTLEMENT & CONSOLIDATION, BHUBANESWAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter involves a challenge to the impugned orders at Annexures-1 to 3 passed by the authorities competent in exercise of powers under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (for short the "OCH&PFL Act").

(2.) Short background involved in this case is that the three sons of Jasobanta Roul the main branch had undivided ancestral joint family property i.e. homestead, Agriculture, tank and orchard lands in Village Binjha under Sabak Khata No.191- Ac.0.85 dec., Sabak Khata No.189-A1.38 dec., Sabak Khata No.117-Ac.0.94 dec. and Sabik Khata No.63-Ac.0.75 dec. They also claimed to have 66 decimals of land in Village Nalapur in Survey Khata No.188. Petitioners claimed that while they were in jointness the youngest son of Sukadev died on 4.10.1951 and his wife predeceased him. Thus, the remaining two brothers became the owners of the whole joint family properties after their death in 1976. Sukanti Roul -opposite party no.7 also died during pendency of the consolidation Revision in the year 1996. It is claimed that Sankarsan while looking after the settlement operation in the year 1969-70, illegally got the name of Sulochana-opposite party no.8 and recorded involving the disputed land as successor of late Sukadeba along with his mother, brothers and the petitioners but however, excluding the petitioner no.1 illegally. After the notification and preparation of the preliminary record of rights under Section 6, finding defective recordings, four objection cases vide Objection Case No.1908 to 1911 of 1993 were put against the opposite parties in respect of the L.R. Khata No.138(ka), L.R. Khata no.53, L.R. Khata No.91 and L.R. Khata No.138 respectively. Thereby the objectors therein all claiming to include the petitioner no.1 in the joint record and to exclude the opposite party 8 from the joint records on the sole ground that the share of the father of the opposite party no.8 who died in 1951, devolved on the two surviving brothers, for which the opposite party no.8 is not entitled to claim share of her father. Opposite party no.8, on the other hand, filed objection case Nos.1764, 1767 and 1878 of 1993 for declaring of her share in the lands in L.R. Khata No.138(Ka), 138, 91 respectively. At the same time, the opposite party no.9 also filed objection case bearing no.1769 of 1993 for partition of his share in L.R. Khata No.53 as he was jointly recorded with the petitioners and the opposite party nos.4 to 7. The three objection cases and the objection case filed by the opposite party no.9 appeared to be in respect of the petitioners' claim in objection case no.1909 of 1993. Since involved common question of fact and law and also further involving particular set of lands, all the cases were taken together.

(3.) Considering the rival contentions of the parties the opposite party no.3 in disposal of all the objection cases by a common order dated 28.06.1994 vide Annexure-1 while observing that the lands involving Khata No.138, 138(Ka) and 91 are the ancestral property of Roul Family, therefore, Santilata is entitled to a share and accordingly, directed for inclusion of name of Shantilata the petitioner no.1 in the land record. At the same time, observed that the name of opposite party no.8 cannot be omitted from the land record entry and thereby further observed that the opposite party no.8 is also entitled to share in respect of the Khata No.53. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the opposite party no.3 vide Annexure-1, equal number of appeals were filed, which appeals got dismissed by the opposite party no.2 by order dated 28.11.1994 involving Annexure-2. The revisions being preferred involving the orders under Annexures-1 and 2, the opposite party no.1 dismissed the revisions thereby confirming the orders passed by the opposite party nos.2 and 3 as appearing at Annexure-3.