RAMA DEO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant against a confirming judgment in the suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and in the alternative for recovery of possession and permanent injunction.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff was that the suit land was recorded in the name of Lord Balunkeswar Mahesh Bije Badasasan, Keonjhar. After abolition of estate, it was wrongly recorded in the name of the Government as Anabadi. The Executive Officer of the deity filed O.E.A. Case No. 40 of 1986 before the O.E.A. Collector, Keonjhar to record the suit land in favour of deity. By order dated 10.07.87, the O.E.A. Collector settled Ac.18.07 dec. in favour of deity on rayati status subject to payment of back rent and salami from 1970-71 to 1986-87. On 17.09.91, the O.E.A. Collector directed the Executive Officer of deity to deposit back rent. The Executive Officer deposited Rs.17,631.70 paisa on 21.04.1994 towards back rent and salami. By order dated 12.04.94, the O.E.A. Collector directed correction of R.O.R. and issuance of patta in favour of deity. The R.O.R. was issued and land was recorded in favour of deity. While matter stood thus, the Executive Officer of deity executed an agreement to sell the suit land in her favour on 02.01.94, since she was in possession and assured her to sale the same after correction of R.O.R. She paid Rs.6,000/- towards advance on 29.01.1994 to Executive Officer vide receipt no. 803. She was in permissive possession of the suit land. Thereafter, the Executive Officer filed O.A. No. 1 of 1994 (II) under Sec.19 of O.H.R.E. Act, 1951 before the Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa, Bhubaneswar to accord permission to sell the suit land and other lands to meet the day to-day expenditure of the deity. On 30.1.95, the Commissioner of Endowments allowed the application to sell the land @ Rs.5,500/- per decimal and keep the money in fixed deposit. The Executive Officer registered two sale deed nos.1380 and 1381 respectively in her favour for a consideration of Rs.38,000/- on 2.6.95. Ac.0.08 dec. of land was purchased from Plot No. 178/2 and 179/1. Under registered sale deed no. 1381, Ac.0.025 was purchased from Plot No. 178/1. Possession of the land was delivered to her. Defendant no. 3, who has no semblance of right, title or possession over the suit land, tried to make boundary wall over the suit land. Her son filed Misc. Case No. 51/95 under Sec.144 Cr.P.C. before the S.D.M., Keonjhar. On 02.07.95, the S.D.M. directed the parties to maintain status quo. With this factual scenario, she instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

(3.) The defendant nos.1 and 2 filed a joint written statement pleading, inter alia, that description of suit land described in the plaint does not tally with the sale deeds. It was recorded as Sadaka in sabik khata no.2, sabik plot no. 5 in 1914-15 settlement. In current settlement, it was recorded in the name of State in Khata No. 137. Mutation Case No. 40/86 was initiated for settlement of land of some properties of deity. On an erroneous report of Amin, rent was assessed in favour of deity. The plots were mutated in deity's favour. But sabik plot no.5 was not settled in favour of deity. Therefore plaintiff had not acquired any title over the suit land. She is not in possession of the suit land. While preparing plot index in settlement, hal plot no.179 had been erroneously referred to sabik plot no.10. Mutation case no. 40/86 had been wrongly referred to as O.E.A. Case. The suit land had never been given to deity for any purpose. State of Orissa is the paramount owner of suit land. Mochibandha High School applied for alienation of suit land alongwith some other land, whereafter Alienation Case No. 17/82 was registered on 20.7.82. The case is subjudice. The school is in possession of suit land. Accordingly certificates have been granted by Tahasildar, Keonjhar by Resolution dated 16.12.94. Government of Orissa took over management of Mochibandha High School. The School and its assets have been taken over by the State. That School now functions under the control and supervision of defendant no.2. Suit land was never the property of the deity. The plaintiff has not acquired any title by virtue of the sale made by the Executive Officer. Plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land as would be revealed from the reports obtained in Crl.Misc. Case No. 51/95 under Sec.144 Cr.P.C. The conduct of Naresh Chandra Soy, the then Executive Officer of deity in obtaining permission under Sec.19 of the O.H.R.E. Act, 1951 in O.A. No. 1/94 and selling the suit land appeared to be mysterious. Soon after this sale and some other sales in the name of members of plaintiff's family, Naresh Chandra Soy was relieved of his charges. No document or reference relating to disputed transfers is now available in the office of Executive Officer of deity.