DINABANDHU ORAM Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges the order dated 12.6.2018 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate, Sundargarh, opposite party no.2, in Revenue Appeal No.10 of 1991, whereby opposite party no.2 dismissed the appeal and recalled the order dated 12.9.1996 for restoration of the case land in favour of the petitioners.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details the short facts of the case are that one Gudru Oram was the recorded owner of the land admeasuring Ac.1.45 dec. appertaining to Sabik Khata No.37, Plot No.480 of Mouza-Durgapur. He died leaving behind two sons, Bandhu and Gosein. Gosein died issueless. Bandhu died leaving behind four sons, Bisu, Tunia, Godro and Chama. The petitioners are the sons of Bisu, Tunia and Chama. Bishu, Godro and Chama along with Dulia, widow of Tunia, filed an application before the S.D.O., Panposh to accord permission to sell Ac.0.36 dec. from Plot No.482 in favour of Sachidananda Pattnaik and another and Ac.1.45 dec. from Plot No.480 in favour of Sreelal Agarwal and others, which was registered as Revenue M.C No.240 of 1962-63. By order dated 3.11.1963, the S.D.O., Panposh accorded permission. Thereafter, Ac.1.00 dec. was alienated in favour of Sreelal Agarwal by means of RSD No.297/1964. The rest Ac.0.45 dec. was alienated in favour of Iswardas Agarwal, father of opposite parties 6 and 7, Kishorilal Agarwal, father of opposite parties 8 to 10 and Dwarika Prasad Agarwal, father of opposite parties 11 and 12, by means of RSD No.298/1964. The vendees constructed their residential houses over the same. While matter stood thus, the S.D.O., Panposh so motu initiated RMC No.80 of 1972 under Regulation 2 of 1956 on the report of the R.I. It was held that in RMC No.240 of 1962-63, permission was accorded to Bishu Oram, Godro Oram and Chama Oram to sell Ac.1.45 dec. appertaining to Khata No.37, Plot No.480 of Mouza-Gurgaput to Sreelal Agarwal and others. The vendees are in possession of the land. They have title over the same. Held so, the S.D.O., Panposh dropped the case on 30.4.1976. Again the Sub- Collector, Panposh initiated RMC No.48 of 1980 on the complaint made by Deogi Oram claiming herself to be the adopted daughter of Gosain Oram. Case was renumbered as RMC No.222 of 1987. The Sub-Collector dropped the case on 23.1.1990 holding that the objectors had no case and the petition had been filed to protract the litigation. Assailing the order dated 23.1.1990, Bisra Oram claiming to be the adopted son of Deogi Oram filed R.A No.10 of 1991 before the Addl. District Magistrate, Sundargarh, opposite party no.2. During pendency of the appeal, Bisra Oram died. His widow Sugi Oram was substituted. She also died during pendency of the appeal. Jena Oram claiming to be the brother of Birsa Oram and guardian of the daughters of Birsa Oram continued the appeal. The appeal was allowed on 12.9.1996. On 13.2.2004, opposite party no.13 purchased Ac.11.5 dec. of land from opposite parties 8 to 10 for a valid consideration. In Mutation Case No.489 of 2004, ROR was issued in favour of him. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.9.1996, opposite parties 6 and 7 sons of Iswardash Agarwal filed OJC No.5484 of 1997. Shyam Sunder Agarwal, Ram Gopal Agarwal, Krishan Kumar Agarwal, opposite parties 8 to 10 sons of Kishorilal Agarwal, Ghanashyam Das Agarwal and Sajjan Kumar Agarwal, opposite parties 11 and 12, sons of Dwaraka Prasad Agarwal also filed OJC No.5088 of 1997. Both the writ petitions were disposed of on 25.10.2016. The matter was remanded to the appellate authority for de novo hearing. By order dated 12.6.2018, the A.D.M., Sundargarh, opposite party no.2, dismissed the appeal.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties 6 to 13. It is stated that Bandhu Oram was the absolute owner of Sabik Plot No.480, Khata No.37 of Mouza-Durgapur. Gosain Oram died issueless. Bandhu Oram had four sons, Bisu Oram, Tunia Oram, Gadro Oram and Chama Oram. The petitioners are the successors of Bandhu Oram. After death of Bandhu Oram, his sons applied for permission in RMC No.240 of 1960-62 to sell Ac.1.45 dec. of land appertaining to Plot No.480 and Ac.0.36 dec. appertaining to Plot No.482 in favour of Sreelal Agarwal. The vendors executed an unregistered sale deed on 9.2.1959 with an undertaking to execute the registered sale deed after necessary permission was accorded. On 3.11.1963, the S.D.O, Panposh accorded permission. The sale deeds were registered on 19.12.1964 in favour of Sreelal Agarwal measuring Ac.1.00 dec. and Iswardas Agarwal, Kishorilal Agarwal and Dwarika Prasad Agawal jointly in respect of Ac.0.45 dec. of land. Iswardas Agarwal, father of opposite parties 6 and 7, Kishorilal, father of opposite parties 8 to 10 and Dwarika Prasad, father of opposite parties 11 and 12 divided the land amicably and constructed the houses and residing therein. The SDO, Panposh initiated RMC No.80 of 1972 against the predecessors of opposite parties 6 to 12. Amin submitted the report on 31.3.1976 stating that the valid permission was accorded from the competent authority. On 30.4.1976, the S.D.O., Panposh dropped RMC No.240 of 1962-63 holding that the opposite parties are in possession of the same. The said order has attained finality. During settlement operation in 1966-67, the land was recorded jointly in the names of three purchasers in Hal Khata No.26, Mouza-Rourkela Town, Unit No.43, Udit Nagar. The final ROR was published on 28.5.1981. In the year 1980, one Deogi Oram claiming to be the daughter of Gosain Oram filed RMC No.48 of 1980 before the S.D.O., Panposh for eviction. The same was renumbered as RMC No.222 of 1987. On 23.1.1990, RMC No.222 of 1987 was disposed of by the S.D.O., Panposh holding that the land has been validly transferred. The same was challenged by the petitioners before the appellate authority in R.A No.10 of 1991, which was allowed on 12.9.1996. Assailing the same, opposite parties 6 to 12 filed OJC Nos.5484 of 1997 and 5088 of 1997 before this Court. The same were disposed of on 25.10.2016 directing that the appeal shall be heard on merit after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties.