BIJAY KUMAR BAL Vs. COLLECTOR, PURI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition involves a challenge to the order dated 3.8.2009 passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa in OSS Case No.43 of 2003.

(2.) Short background involved in the case is that the property in question appertaining to Sabik Khata No.109, Plot No.961 measuring an Area Ac.26.13 decimals out of Ac.230.92 decimals corresponding to Hal Khata No.175, Plot No.1199 measuring an area of Ac.7.25 decimals, Plot No.1205/1221 measuring an area of Ac.18.88 decimals of Mouza- Khalakata under Nimapara Police Station in the district of Puri originally belong to State Government and the kisam of the land was recorded as Anabadi. The petitioner claimed that the ex-Intermediary, namely, Dhaneswar Routray and others on 14.4.1939 through Hata Patta leased out the said land to the father of the petitioner. After death of Bansidhar Bal, the father of the petitioner, the petitioner is in possession of the suit land and he has been paying rent under Jamabandi No.102/86. This fact also gets discloses from the Tenant Ledger No.102/86. Petitioner while admitting that the suit land was part of Anabadi land, which has been leased out to the father of the petitioner by the ex-Intermediary through Hata Patta taking place much prior to the date of vesting of the land. Tenant ledger has also been opened accordingly. It further reveals from the settlement operation in the locality, the Tahasildar, Nimapara-opposite party no.4 filed a case bearing Suit No.4562/1983 before the Additional Settlement Officer , Puri to record the suit land in favour of the State Government. The Additional Settlement Officer disallowed the claim of the Tahasildar on 19.1985 appearing at Annexure-1. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Settlement Officer, opposite party no.1 preferred a revision before the Member, Board of Revenue vide OSS. Case No.43 of 2004. The present petitioner appeared in the case and the case was disposed of allowing the revision vide Annexure-2 impugned herein.

(3.) Sri Samal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenged the impugned order on four counts. Firstly the order of the revisional authority is contrary to the material available on record, secondly there is manifest error involving the impugned order, thirdly the proceeding initiated under Section 32 of the Orissa Survey & Settlement Act was hopelessly barred and lastly learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the order on the premises that when the revision petitioner attributed fraud against the petitioner, it becomes the duty of the revisional petitioner to establish the fact of fraud on the premises that the order impugned suffers on account of all the four counts, learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court for interfering in the impugned order and setting aside the same.