BRUNDABAN RAMANUJA DAS Vs. HAJURI PRAFULLA CHANDRA KHUNTIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 18-2-1988 passed by the Tahasildar and O. E. A. Collector, Puri in Claim Case No. 9057 of 1963 vide Annexure-1 and the order passed in revision by the Member, Board of Revenue dated 28-9-1991 in O. E. A. Revision Case No. 19 of 1990 vide Annexure-3.

(2.) The admitted facts are that one Balabhadra Khuntia the common arrestor of the opposite parties, was the owner and intermediary of the disputed land as well as the house standing thereon. The said Balabhadra Khuntia executed a lease deed in favour of the present petitioner. While the said lease was in subsistence, the disputed land vested in the State of Orissa in pursuance of notification issued under Section 3 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (for short, 'the Act'). After the vesting, Raghunath Khuntia, son of Balabhadra Khuntia filed application on 30-10-1963 under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, which was registered as O. E. A. Case No. 9057 of 1963. The case was dismissed for default on 20-11-1965. On an application being filed by the landlord for restoration, the order of dismissal was set aside. The case was allowed by order dated 14-12-1966. Against the said order, the present petitioner filed an appeal, being O. E. A. Appeal No. 46 of 1967 before the Additional District Magistrate, Puri on the ground that the question of restoration was not considered. The said appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Revenue Officer for consideration of the restoration petition. Ultimately, on 17-2-1988, the restoration matter was taken up and it was allowed on consent. But the present petitioner filed an affidavit on 18-2-1988 stating that there was no consent for the restoration order dated 17-2-1988. Thereafter, the case was allowed by order dated 2-3-1988 and the petitioner preferred an appeal, being O. E. A. Appeal No. 1 of 1988, which was dismissed on 7-7-1990. Against the order of the appellate Court, a revision petition was filed before the Member, Board of Revenue, being Revision Case No. 19 of 1990. The revision was dismissed by a reasoned judgment dated 28-9-1991, vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition.

(3.) The main contentions raised before this Court on behalf of the petitioner are :-(1) The restoration of the case is illegal; and(2) Settlement of the suit land in favour of the landlord under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act is illegal inasmuch as the landlord was not in possession of the suit land on the date of vesting;