O.J.C. No. 6688 of 1996. Case: Parbati Panda and Ors. Vs State of Orissa and Ors.. High Court of Orissa (India)

Case NumberO.J.C. No. 6688 of 1996
CounselFor Appellant: S.S. Das, B.R. Dash, S.K. Mishra and S. Mohanty, Advs. and For Respondents: S.P. Mishra, S. Mishra, S. Nanda, S.K. Nayak, S.C. Pradhan, K.K. Rout, B.K. Sahoo and Pravati Mishra, Advs. For O.Ps. 3 and 4
JudgesL. Mohapatra, J.
IssueOrissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 - Section 32
Citation2005 (II) OLR 698
Judgement DateAugust 19, 2005
CourtHigh Court of Orissa (India)

Judgment:

L. Mohapatra, J.

  1. The petitioners in this writ application challenged the legality of order passed by the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement. Orissa in R.P. Case No. 556 of 1996 filed under Section 32 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958.

  2. The opposite parties 3 and 4 filed a revision before the learned Commissioner under Section 32 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act against the order dated 30th December, 1995 passed by the Additional Settlement Officer, Cuttack in S.A. No. 470 of 1995 and the same having been allowed, the present writ application has been filed.

  3. The case of the opposite parties 3 and 4 is that the properties in question stood recorded in favour of the common ancestor Khetra Panda. Late Khetra Panda had three sons namely, Dasarath, Indramani and Chandramani. Dasarath was given away on adoption and the other son Indramani as well as his wife died leaving behind no issue. The opposite parties 3 and 4 are the sons of Chandramani, who claim to have succeeded to the properties of Khetra and also claim exclusive title over the properties in question. During Khanapuri stage, the suit plots were recorded in the name of petitioners 1 and 2. In view of the above, the opposite parties 3 and 4 filed five objection cases against recording of different Khatas and two other objection cases were also filed by the purchasers. All the seven cases were heard together and the case of the opposite parties 3 and 4 were disallowed in a common judgment. Against the order passed in the above seven objection cases, one appeal was filed and the same having been dismissed, the revision was filed. It is further case of the opposite parties 3 and 4 that one Narayan Panda, who is the husband of petitioner No. 1 had filed Title Suit No. 99 of 1966 in the Court of the Munsif, Jajpur claiming to be adopted by Indramani through a registered adoption deed dated 24.6.1965. The said suit was dismissed and Title Appeal filed against the said judgment was also dismissed. Having lost in both the Courts, the said Narayan Panda fraudulently got deed of acknowledgement of adoption dated 4.11.1977 in his favour and on the basis of the same, claimed title over the properties. According to the opposite party 3 and 4, the said Narayan Panda having failed to prove adoption in the civil Court, could not claim title over the properties on the basis of the fraudulent deed of acknowledgement of adoption.

  4. The present petitioners raised...

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