ALOK PRASAD BOSE Vs. ADDL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BALASORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Biswanath Rath, J. Since all the Writ Petitions involve challenge to the same order and since the parties have common set of submissions, on consent of parties this Court takes up all the matters together and decides all the Writ Petitions involved herein by this common judgment.

(2.) Short background involved in this case is that taking the disputed property involving all the L.E. Cases vide L.E. Case no.429/03, L.E. Case no.430/03 and L.E. Case No.431/03 the parties entered into a Suit bearing T.S. No.64/49. The suit was decreed and as a result of the decree involving such suit disputed property involved herein fell to the share of father of the petitioner. The matter ultimately brought to the level of High Court, where the matter finally ended with a compromise between the parties. It is while the matter stood thus and after the dispute between the parties involving the disputed property were set at rest, after a long time and after so many decades the proceedings were initiated vide L.E. Case no.429/03, L.E. Case no.430/03 and L.E. Case No.431/03. Upon receipt of notice involving all the three L.E. Cases the opposite party therein filed his objection as find place at page 21 of the W.P.(C) No.3100 of 2015. It is needless to indicate here that similar response have been filed by the petitioner involving the L.E. Cases indicated hereinabove. Through the objection the petitioner not only claimed his right over the property through the compromise decree involving the T.S. No.64/49, but also claimed that for the possession of the land in favour of the petitioner through a compromise decree, there was no question of interfering in the right, title and interest of the petitioner by exercise of power under the OPLE Act. All the three L.E. Cases appear to have already been disposed of on contest by entering into the orders at three stages. By the order dated 6.09.2004 where the Tahasildar recommended the matter for settlement of the land in favour of the petitioner involving all the three plots involved herein to the Sub-Collector and on the acceptances of such recommendation the matter was again taken up and decided by 4 order dated 8.4.2005 wherein the Tahasildar again after entering into another set of inquiry settled the lands in favour of the petitioner and also assessed the revenue at Rs.137.65/-, Rs.450/- and Rs.107.10/- respectively. It is stated here that the L.E. Case no.429/03 involves Khata No.428 plot no.258 area Ac.0.19 decimals, L.E. Case no.430/03 involves Khata no.180 plot no.180 & 226 Ac.0.49 & Ac.0.21 decimals Ac. 0.70 decimals Khata No.159 plot no.332 Ac.0.06 decimals plot no.330 Ac.0.15 decimals and plot no.326 Ac.0.08 decimals and L.E. Case no.431/03 involves Khata No.185 plot no.385 area Ac.0.03 dec. In a subsequent order dated 27.1.2006 the Tahasildar in confirmation of his own order dated 6.09.2004 and 8.04.2005 reaffirmed the order of settlement involving the disputed property in favour of the petitioner for final assessment of the rent involving the disputed property. It appears, at this stage of the matter the proceeding was again undertaken by the Tahasildar Simulia and by order dated 30.06.2006 the Tahasildar was pleased to reject the prayer of the petitioner on the premises that he failed to produce any documentary evidence to settle the land in his favour vide Annexure-3. This order being challenged in appeal the appellate authority also dismissed the appeal on the same premises of non-production of the records by the petitioner and also for not satisfying his case of peaceful possession for more than 30 years. Consequently the OPLE Revision No.2/10 preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed. Similarly involving the L.E. Case No.430/03, L.E. Case no.429/03 and L.E. Case No.431/03 the petitioner appears to have filed OPLE Appeal No.53/2006, OPLE Appeal No.54/2006 and OPLE Appeal No.55/2006 and consequent upon dismissal of appeals revisions under the OPLE Act were filed and such Revisions were dismissed by the order vide Annexure-1 on confirmation of the order passed by the appellate authority. Hence, the above three Writ Petitions.

(3.) Shri A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner advancing a common argument involving all the three writ petitions taking this Court to the objection filed by the petitioner in all the three proceedings including one ended with in a writ petition and also taking this Court to the plea taken therein submitted that the petitioner has a clear objection to the initiation of the proceeding on the premises of existence of a civil court compromise decree which has gone up to the High Court level and also a challenge to the initiation of the proceeding on the ground of maintainability for existence of civil court compromise decree. Shri Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner also taking this Court to the entire order sheet of the Tahasildar more particularly taking this Court to the order dated 6.09.2004, 8.04.2005 and 27.1.2006 contended that for the involvement of the Tahasildar and acceptance of the recommendation of the Tahasildar by the SubCollector in exercise of power U/s.8-A of the OPLE Act, the 6 settlement aspect has already been closed by the final order dated 27.01.2006 by the Tahasildar involving the land involved in the encroachment cases.