W.P. (C) Nos. 12031 and 12032 of 2006. Case: Cuttack Municipal Corporation Vs Joint Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement and Ors.. High Court of Orissa (India)
| Case Number | W.P. (C) Nos. 12031 and 12032 of 2006 |
| Judges | A.S. Naidu, J. |
| Issue | Orissa Estate Abolition Act; Orissa Survey and Settlement Act; Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 |
| Citation | 110 (2010) CLT 553 |
| Judgement Date | June 28, 2010 |
| Court | High Court of Orissa (India) |
Judgment:
A.S. Naidu, J.
-
Cuttack Municipal Corporation has filed W.P.(C) No. 12031/2006 assailing the Order Dated 24.2.2004 (Annexure-12) passed by the Joint Commissioner, Settlement & Consolidation, Orissa, Cuttack in R.P. Case No. 2161/2001. It has also filed W.P.(C) No. 12032/2006 (renumbered as R.P. Case No. 1612/2003) assailing the Order Dated 24.2.2004 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Settlement & Consolidation. Orissa, Cuttack. In R.P. Case Nos. 2162/2001 (renumbered as R.P. Case No. 1613/2003). The facts & points of law in both the cases being same, by consent of Learned Counsel, both the Writ Petitions are heard together & disposed of by this common Judgment.
-
Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts which are necessary for effectual adjudication are stated herein below:
Gajendra Kumar Acharya was the intermediary in respect of lands appertaining to Tauzi No. 2499. The said Tauzi consisted of Ac.3582.08 decs. of lands under three khatas. The disputes cropped up between the agnates of the intermediary with regard to right, title & interest oyer the lands. The said dispute was decided by the then Sub-ordinate Judge, Cuttack in T.S. No. 94/1924. The dispute travelled up to the Privy Council, where it was held that Gangadhar has a share in the property. The decision of the Privy Council is reported in AIR 1931 P.C. 84.
-
During pendency of the disputes in the year 1931 settlement operations commenced in the area & a portion of the lands appertaining to Sabik Khata No. 917 consisting of Plot No. 1135/3776 measuring Ac.0.606 decs, were recorded in favour of the Cuttack Municipality (hereinafter called-as Municipality), which was the adjoining owner.
-
In the meanwhile the Estate vested within the State. After the death of Gajendra Kumar Acharya, his son Naba Kumar Acharya applied to settle the lands measuring Ac.0.606 decs (more fully described above) in his favour under the provisions of O.E.A. Act. The said petition was registered as O.E.A. Case No. 3699/1976. After observing all paraphernalia, the O.E.A. Collector settled the lands in favour of Naba Kumar Acharya by Order Dated 17.1.1978. After the order of settlement was passed Naba Kumar Acharya paid salami & rent to the administration for the period from 1953-54 to 1980-81.
-
In the year 1983 the Municipality preferred an appeal assailing the order of settlement passed under the O.E.A. Act settling the lands in favour of Naba Kumar Acharya. The said appeal was registered as Appeal Case No. 1673/1983. In the year 1984-85, it is submitted that the appeal was allowed mainly on the ground that the Addl. Tahasildar had no jurisdiction to settle the Municipality lands under the provisions of O.E.A. Act. However, no document was filed in support of such pleadings. In the year 1987 Naba Kumar Acharya sold lands appertaining to Hal Plot Nos. 482, 283 Part & 286 in favour of Opp. Party No. 2 (Gobinda Prasad Pattnaik) & Smt. Baisali Mohanty under a registered sale deed. In the same year, i.e. 1987 the Record of Rights were published by the Settlement Authorities recording the lands in favour of the Municipality with a note of possession of Naba Kumar Acharya in respect of Hal Plot Nos. 282, 286 & 296. In the year 1995 Opp. Party No. 2, the purchaser, filed Mutation case Nos. 1749/1995, 1750/1995 & 1751/1995 before the Tahasildar (Sadar), Cuttack, with a prayer to record the lands in his favour on the strength of the registered sale deed executed by Sri Naba Kumar Acharya as well the order of settlement made in favour of Naba Kumar Acharya by the O.E.A. authorities in O.E.A. Case No. 3699/ 1976. After giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties by Order Dated 30.5.1996 both the...
To continue reading
Request your trial