W.P. (C) No. 17917 of 2011. Case: Narayan Chandra Pradhan and Others Vs The Tahasildar and Another. High Court of Orissa (India)

Case NumberW.P. (C) No. 17917 of 2011
CounselFor Appellant: Madhumati Agrawal and T.K. Mishra, Advs. and For Respondents: Addl. Govt. Advocate
JudgesB. K. Patel, J.
IssueOrissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 - Sections 38(B), 6, 7, 8
Judgement DateJuly 30, 2013
CourtHigh Court of Orissa (India)

Judgment:

B. K. Patel, J.

  1. Aggrieved by order at Annexure-6 dated 26.4.2011 passed by Opp. party No. 1-Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in Rev. Misc. Case No. 13 of 2010 rejecting petitioner's claim for recording of the case land by way of mutation in their names, the petitioners have filed this writ petition with a prayer to direct opposite party No. 1 - Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar by appropriate writ for correction of Record of Rights in respect of case land in consonance with order passed by the OEA Collector under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act 1951 (for short the 'O.E.A. Act'). Petitioner's case is that case land relating to erstwhile estate of ex-intermediary of Killa Gadkana was settled with the ex-intermediary by the O.E.A. Collector under Sections 6 and 7 of the O.E.A. Act by order under Annexure-2 dated 8.3.1961 passed in OEA Case No. 13 of 1959-60. Petitioners purchased the case land from the ex-intermediary on the strength of registered sale deed at Annexure-1 dated 23.7.1965. However, in the current settlement Record of Rights, the case land was wrongly recorded as 'Rakhit Anabadi' in the name of State Government. Nonetheless, the petitioners are in peaceful possession of the case land since the date of purchase. It is alleged that on 18.8.2008 some persons claiming themselves to be officials of the State Government destroyed the barbed wire fence around the case land to certain extent. Apprehending forcible dispossession, the petitioners filed W.P. (C) No. 19494 of 2008 which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 30.1.2009 directing the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to conduct an enquiry into the allegations made in the writ petition and take appropriate decision in the matter. It was also directed that till completion of enquiry, status quo in respect of the case land be maintained. Petitioners also assert to have filed Mutation Case No. 3614 of 2009 before the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for recording of the case land in their names. However, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, instead of proceeding with the mutation case, passed the impugned order rejecting the petitioners' claim of mutation of the case land in their names concluding that order dated 8.3.1961 passed in OEA Case No. 13 of 1959-60, which is the basis of petitioner's claim over the case land, having been passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and void, and consequently, subsequent sale by the ex-intermediary to the petitioners is deemed to be void.

  2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order passed by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar amounts to illegally sitting in appeal over the order passed by the OEA Collector under the O.E.A. Act. It was strenuously argued that case land was settled with the ex-intermediary about 50 years back on 8.3.1961 and the order passed in OEA Case No. 13 of 1959-60 having not been assailed by the State, has attained finality. It was incumbent on the part of the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to act upon the order passed by OEA Collector...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT