Orissa High Court
Rameswar Singh And Others vs Tahasildar, Sadar, Sundergarh And ... on 23 October, 2000
Author: P.K. Misra
Bench: P.K. Misra
JUDGMENT P.K. Misra, J.
1. This writ application relates to orders passed by the various statutory authorities in addling proceeding under Chapter-IV of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called the "O. L. R Act").
2. The disputed property relates to Sabik Khata No. 139 of village Kiralaga in Sundeigarh district. The lands in the aforesaid Khata were recorded in the name of one Mandaraj Rautia, who is admittedly dead since long. The aforesaid Mandaraj Rautia had one son, Tetengu, who is also admittedly dead. Dulari Rautia, widow of Tetengu. Admittedly died in the year 1980. It is not disputed that Tetengu had three daughters, Draupadi, Sunamati and Sahabati. Sunamati and Sahabati are also dead. Dhan Singh, Laxmidhar and Sibasankar are three sons of Sunamati. Sahabati has expired without any progeny. In the year 1989, a ceiling proceeding was initiated against Draupadi, the surviving-daughter of Tetengu, and Dulari. Petitioners 1 to 8 are heirs of one Kundan Rautia. The ceiling proceeding was initiated only against Draupadi Rautia. It appears that initially she had not taken any steps to contest the proceeding. Petitioners 1 to 8 had filed a petition to exclude certain properties from the ceiling area of Draupadi Rautia on the allegation that Kundan Rautia, their common predecessor-in-interest, had purchased the property from Tetengu during life-time. The aforesaid petition having been rejected, subsequently Ceiling Appeal, Case No. 2/93 was filed by Draupadi Rautia and her two daughters. The said appeal was dismissed. Subsequently, a petition purporting to be one under section 60(2) of the O. L R. Act was filed by the present petitioners which has been rejected on the ground of limitation. The previous orders passed by the Ceiling authorities are being challenged by the present petitioners.
3. From the undisputed facts, it is apparent that by the time the ceiling proceeding was initiated against Draupadi, the two other daughters of Tetengu, namely Sunamati and Sahamati had expired. Petitioners 9 to 11 are admittedly sons of Sunamati. It is not disputed that Tetengu's widow Dulari Rautia had died in the year 1980. It is also not known as to whether Sunamati had died prior to the death of Dulari, or after her death, but the year of death of Sunamati is immaterial. Tetengu had admittedly died in the year 1951 and on his death, the widow Dulari had inherited the property. On death of Dulari in the year 1980, the property would devolve upon her daughter Draupadi as well as the sons of pre-deceased daughter Sunamati. In other words, Draupadi as well as petitioners 9 to 11 were the heirs of Dulari in accordance with section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. In such view of the matter, the conclusion of the authorities that on the death of Dulari, the entire property was inherited by Draupadi is on the face of it illegal and unsustainable. The ceiling proceeding was admittedly initiated only against Draupadi. Petitioners 9 to 11 had independent right and they had succeeded as tenants-in-common as envisaged in section 19 of the Hindu Succession Act. Their interest in the property could "not be adversely affected in the ceiling proceeding started against Draupadi alone, nor they could be treated as members of family of Draupadi. It was faintly contended by the counsel representing the State that they could be treated as body of individual represented by Draupadi. In the facts of the present case, I do not think, such a contention is acceptable. Since petitioners 9 to 11 had independent right and their interest cannot be said to be represented by Draupadi, it is obvious that the ceiling proceeding initiated only against Draupadi is not binding on them. Their interest in the property has to be dealt with separately. In aforesaid view of the matter, the order passed in Ceiling Case No. 2/1989 and subsequent appeal/review petitions are quashed. The matter is required to be re-determined by the Tahsildar in accordance with law. The properties of petitioners 9, 10 and 11 are to be excluded from the ceiling proceeding.
4. In course of hearing, it was also contended that some properties had been sold to the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners 1 to 8. Now that the matter is being remanded for fresh determination, petitioners 1 to 8 shall also be given opportunity to establish their claim and if it is proved that Tetengu had sold any property to predecessor-in-interest of petitioners 1 to 8, such property should also be excluded. In course of heating, it was also contended that some property had been gifted by Dulari in favour of her son-in-law Biswanath, father of petitioners 9 to 11. Petitioners 9 to 11 should also be given an opportunity to establish the aforesaid aspect. The present petitioners as well as daughters of Draupadi who is admittedly dead in the meantime, should be given opportunity of hearing and thereafter the matter should be finalised in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Tahsildar on 4th December, 2000. The lower court records shall be sent back.
5. Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
6. Writ application allowed.