Orissa High Court
Sahadev Samartha vs State Of Odisha & Others on 21 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
LAA No.108 of 2018
Sahadev Samartha ....... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others ....... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate
For Respondents :
Mr. B. Panigrahi, A.S.C.
(For Respondent No.1)
Mr. H.N. Mohapatra, Advocate
(For Respondent No.2)
Mr. T. Panigrahi, Advocate
(For Respondent Nos.5 and 7)
-----
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
_______________________________________________________________
Date of Hearing: 09.02.2024 and 07.05.2024
and Date of Judgment: 21.05.2024
_______________________________________________________________________
S.K. Mishra, J.
1. The Appellant has preferred this Appeal, being aggrieved by the order dated 06.08.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri in L.A. Case No.257 of 2013, vide which the reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, shortly, here in after 'the Act, 1894", was answered against him and it was ordered that the present Respondent Nos. 2 to 7, who are the Opposite Party Page 1 of 23 LAA No.108 of 2018 Nos. 2 to 7 before the Court below, are entitled to receive the compensation awarded in L.A. Case No.4 of 2009.
2. The brief facts, which led to the filing of this Appeal, are that an area of Ac.7.26 decimals of land situated in mouza-Samanga under Khata No.1093/33, which stands recorded in the names of Arta Samartha, S/o Dama Samartha and Bhima Samartha, S/o Ganda Samartha, was acquired by the Government for sourcing of 75 MLD Drinking Water to Puri town & Samuka Project vide Declaration No.17195 dated 21.04.2011 published in E.O.G No.1042 dated 04.05.2011.
As per the provision under section 11 of Act, 1894, award was passed in favour of the recorded tenants for payment of compensation after observing statutory formalities of the Act, 1894. At the time of payment of compensation amount, one Sahadev Samartha (present Appellant) filed a petition on 27.11.2012 stating that he has filed C.S. No.529 of 2012, which is subjudice and prayed not to disburse the awarded amount to the awardees. Under the circumstances, as the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) could not decide the fact as to who is the owner in possession over the acquired land, referred the matter to the Court below for determination of the rightful owner for receiving the compensation amount awarded in L.A. Case No.04/2009.
Page 2 of 23 LAA No.108 of 2018
3. Before the Court below, in pursuance to notice, all the Opposite Parties appeared and contested the said proceeding. Opposite Party Nos. 3, 6 and 7 contested the proceeding without filing any written objection, whereas the O.Ps. Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 contested the proceeding by filing their Objections separately.
4. The present Appellant, who was the Opposite Party No.1 before the Court below, in his written objection contended that although the suit property was recorded in the name of Arta Samartha and Bhima Samartha, but all the Parties had equal right over the same. The suit schedule property was purchased from one Padmanava Paramguru for a consideration amount of Rs.3300/- by execution of Registered Sale Deed No.9905 dated 04.12.1970 and the consideration amount of Rs.3300/- was paid by equal contribution of all the parties. However, the suit land was jointly recorded in the name of Arta Samartha and his brother Bhima Samartha. The mere non-recording of the name of the Appellant in the mutation record of rights, has no way affected the right, title, interest and possession of the Appellant over the suit property as the Appellant has and had joint and undivided right, title, interest and possession in and over the suit property along with others.
Respondent No.2-Bhagaban Samartha contended before the Court below in his written objection that the suit property is the Page 3 of 23 LAA No.108 of 2018 self-acquired property of Arta Samartha and Bhima Samartha. After purchase of the said property, they got mutated the said property in their names vide Mutation Case No.415 of 1980. Both Arta Samartha and Bhima Samartha, each had half interest over the suit property. Respondent No.2, being one of the legal heirs and successors of late Arta Samartha, has accrued his interest over the suit schedule property equally with Ashok, Purna and Basanti, all being legal heirs of late Arta Samartha.
Respondent No.4-Purna Chandra Samartha, in his written objection filed before the Court below, contended that he has absolute right, title, interest and is in peaceful possession over the suit property. He is entitled to get the compensation amount along with others. Out of the total compensation amount, he is entitled to get 1/3rd interest with respect to Ac.3.63 decimals of property. The suit property has been allotted to three sons of Arta Samartha namely, Bhagaban, Ashok and Purna, with an area of Ac.1.21 decimals each. As Basanti, the daughter of Arta Samartha, has neither interest over the suit property nor she is in any way concerned to the acquired property, she has no share over it and therefore, the awarded amount in respect of Ac.3.61 decimals of land is to be divided into 1/3rd share each among the three brothers. The claim of Basanti, if any, is illegal.
Page 4 of 23 LAA No.108 of 2018
Respondent No.5-Jagabandhu Samartha, in his written objection filed before the Court below, contended that the compensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer should be disbursed in favour of the legal heirs of Arta Samartha and Bhima Samartha. The Appellant-Sahadev Samartha has no title over the suit property. Thus, his claim for compensation is vague and not sustainable in the eye of law.
5. Based on the pleadings and evidence on record, the Court below, gave the following findings:
A. The agreement dated 26.08.1968 (Ext.1), which is the basis of claim of right of Sahadev Samartha (present Appellant) over the acquired property is found to be unregistered. Law is well settled that where a document required by law registrable, has not been registered, is not admissible in evidence. Thus, the same is not admissible as per section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, shortly, here in after "the Act, 1908".
Therefore, claim of title of Opposite Party No.1- Appellant over the acquired land on the strength of agreement to sell is nothing but based on surmise and the case laws relied on by the learned Counsel of the Opposite Party No.1-Appellant have no application in the L.A. Case.
B. Although learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.4-Purna Chandra Samartha, asserted that the Opposite Party No.6-Bauri Nayak has taken her Page 5 of 23 LAA No.108 of 2018 share in earlier family partition, yet she failed to adduce any convincing evidence in respect of her plea. Thus, it cannot be said that the Opposite Party No.6 has no share, out of the compensation money awarded in respect of the acquired land.
C. The present Appellant-Opposite Party No.1- Sahadev Samartha has no manner of right, title and interest over the acquired land.
D. The present Respondent Nos.2 to 7- Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 7 are the only rightful owners of the acquired land having their right, title, interest and possession. Thus, only they are entitled to receive the compensation amount awarded in L.A. Case No. 04 of 2009.
(Emphasis supplied)
6. Mr. Bose, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that Ext.1 is the agreement to sale between Padmanava Paramguru with Arta Samartha and the Appellant-Sahadev Samartha on 26.08.1968, wherein, out of total consideration amount of Rs.3,300/-, Rs.2,700/- was paid in advance and the possession was delivered. He further submitted that the possession of the Appellant has not been disputed by any of the parties. Rather, the possession is accepted by the referral Court. The Court below rejected the claim of the Appellant only on the ground that Ext. 1 is unregistered, ignoring the fact that after amendment of Registration Act, 2001, Page 6 of 23 LAA No.108 of 2018 shortly, "the Act, 2001", which came into force on 24.09.2001, unless the documents containing contract to transfer for consideration of any immovable property for the purpose of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, shortly, here in after "the Act, 1882", if not registered, shall not have effect for the purpose of section 53-A of the Act, 1882.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the agreement for sale (Ext.1) was executed in the year 1968 when registration of such contract was not compulsory and the Act, 2001 also has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the agreement for sale is not required to be compulsorily registered and the observation of referral Court, ignoring Ext.1, is absolutely illegal. Mr. Bose submitted that prior to 2001, as per section 49 of Registration Act, 1908, the said document did not require registration as at that point of time, the Amending Act of 2001 had not come into force. Therefore, the Court below miserably failed to discuss the judgment cited by the parties, except just writing down the citations and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the Appellant is entitled to get 1/3rd of the compensation awarded by the referral Court.
To substantiate his submission, Mr. Bose, learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on the judgments of this Court reported in 2016 (II) OLR 27 (Pitambar Sahoo vs. Angul-Sukinda Page 7 of 23 LAA No.108 of 2018 Railway Limited) and 2008(II) CLR 723 (Satyabadi Pradhan & others vs. Dayanidhi Pradhan and others).
7. In response to the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Panigrahi, learned Counsel for the private Respondent Nos. 5 and 7 submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the referral Court in L.A. Case 257 of 2013, vide which it was ordered to disburse the compensation amount, as fixed in L.A. Case No.04 of 2009, in favour of legal heirs of the Arta Samartha and Bhima Samartha, having ½ share each.
Learned Counsel for the private Respondent Nos. 5 and 7 further submitted that the acquisition area having Khata No. 1093/33, Plot No.1844, area Ac.7.26 decimals of mouza Samnga stands recorded in the name of Bhagban Samartha, Ashok Samartha, Purna Chandra Samartha, S/o Arta Samartha, and Panchi Samartha, W/o Arta Samartha, Bhima Samartha, S/o Ganda Samartha, having Khata No.1826, corresponding to Chaka Plot No.39, to an extent of area Ac.7.26 decimals and said consolidation property corresponds to settlement Khata No. 1093/33, Plot No.1844. When the land was acquired by the Government and amount was determined, an Objection was filed by Sahadev Samartha on the ground that an unregistered agreement dated 26.08.1968, vide Ext.1, held in the name of Arta Samartha and Page 8 of 23 LAA No.108 of 2018 Sahadev Samartha as donees and donor to the said agreement was Padmanava Paramguru. On the basis of such agreement, the Appellant, relying on section 53-A of the Act, 1882, claims that title has already been passed in his favour as per said agreement, but the same is not binding to Bhima Samartha, as he was not a party to the said agreement to sale.
Relying on the judgment in Ghanshyam vs. Yogendra Rathi, reported in 2023 (II) OLR (SC) 43, Mr. Panigrahi, learned Counsel for the private Respondent Nos. 5 and 7 submitted that the apex Court in the said case held that an agreement to sale and power of attorney is not a document of transfer, as such the right, title and interest of an immovable property don't stand transferred by mere execution of the same, unless any document, as contemplated under section 54 of the Act, 1882, is executed and got registered under section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. He further submitted that the apex Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and Another, reported in (2009) 7 SCC 363, also depreciated the transfer of immovable property through sale agreement or general power of attorney and will, instead of registered conveyance deed.
Mr. Panigrahi, learned Counsel for the private Respondent Nos. 5 and 7 further submitted that Sahadev Samartha, Page 9 of 23 LAA No.108 of 2018 in his cross examination, admitted that there is no such endorsement in Ext. 1 to the effect that the contents of Ext. 1 were read over and explained to the parties. He further admitted that at the time of sale of the alleged property, he came to know that same has been sold. He admitted that he has not filed any case before any authority in order to make sale deed illegal and void. He also admitted that he has not taken any step for correction of the ROR, which is recorded in the name of Arta Samartha and Bhima Samartha. In Paragraph 21, during his cross examination, he further admitted that suit property is not the ancestral property of the parties and is the self-acquired property of Bhima Samartha and Arta Samartha.
Mr. Panigrahi submitted that the RSD No. 9905 dated 04.12.1970 stands recorded in the name of Arta Samartha and Bhima Samartha. Ultimately, the acquisition amount, as awarded, is liable to be disbursed in favour of the legal heirs of Arta Samartha and the legal heirs of Bhima Samartha having 50% share each.
Mr. Panigrahi further submitted that in view of section 58 of the Evidence Act, 1872, facts admitted need not be proved. No fact need be proved in any proceeding, which the party there to or their agent agree to admit at the hearing or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any written document under their Page 10 of 23 LAA No.108 of 2018 hands or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time, they are deemed to have been admitted by their pleading. Hence, in view of his own admission during his cross examination as O.P.W. No.1, no illegality has been committed by the Court below.
Mr. Panigrahi, learned Counsel submitted that in Khagendra Sethi vs. Smt. Arnapurna Sethi reported in 2023 (II) OLR 223, this Court has given emphasis to section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which is squarely applicable to the present case. As the Notification for the land acquisition, vide Notification No. 463 dated 08.08.2013 over mouza was held, Sahadev Samartha made objection only to fulfill his oblique motive to gain land acquisition amount without any document. As Government possessed the land and determined the amount to be released in favour of the legal heirs of the Arta Samartha and Bhima Samartha, this Court should not interfere with the finding of the referral Court and the Appeal is liable to be dismissed with cost.
8. Mr. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submitted that, the claim of the present Appellant being against Respondent Nos. 5 and 7, who are the legal heirs of Bhima Samartha, and in view of the admission of the present Appellant during his cross examination as O.P.W.1 that Arta Samartha, the father of Bhagaban Samartha is entitled to half share out of the suit Page 11 of 23 LAA No.108 of 2018 property and he has no manner of right over the property of the legal heirs of Arta Samartha and has no objection in respect of the compensation awarded to them, his client has rightly filed I.A. No.08 of 2021 seeking for a direction to the Court below to release the share of his client and without any basis and cogent reason, the present Appellant has filed an objection to the said I.A. opposing to the said interim prayer made by his client.
9. Before dealing with the issue involved in this Appeal, it would be apt to deal with the genealogy of the family of the Appellant as well as private Respondents, who all are the Opposite Parties before the referral Court. The same is as follows:
Genealogy Late Ganda Samartha Bhima (son)(dead) Sahadev (son)(Appellant) Jagabandhu (R-5) Ketuka (R-7) (son) (daughter) Dama Samartha (dead) Arta (dead) Bhagaban(R-2) Ashok (R-3) Purna (R-4) Bauri (R-6) (son) (son) (son) (daughter) Page 12 of 23 LAA No.108 of 2018
10. As is revealed from Ext. 1 dated 26.08.1968, which was marked with objection, the same is an agreement to sale and the same was entered into between Padmanava Paramguru, as the intending seller and Arta Samartha, S/o Dama Samartha and Sahadev Samartha, S/o Ganda Samantha, who is the present Appellant to be the intending buyers, vide which the consideration amount was fixed to be Rs.3,300/- and an amount of Rs.2,700/- was paid to Padmanava Paramguru with an understanding that the Registered Sale Deed will be executed within a month from the date of such agreement between the parties on payment of the remaining consideration amount of Rs.600/-. It is further revealed from the RSD marked as Ext.5, which is dated 04.12.1970, that there is a reference to the agreement to sale, which has been marked as Ext.1 with objection. The said RSD was entered into between Padmanava Paramguru, as the Vendor and Arta Samartha, S/o Dama Samartha and Bhima Samartha, S/o of Ganda Samartha, as the Vendees, much after the period, as agreed upon between the parties vide Ext.1.
11. Admittedly, as is revealed from deposition of O.P.W. No.1, who is none other than the present Appellant, in Paragraph-8 of his Affidavit evidence, he has stated that after demise of his elder brother namely, late Bhima Samartha, there was dissention among Page 13 of 23 LAA No.108 of 2018 their family members as their respective family grown to a large extent and they are living in separate mess and occupying other family properties separately by amicably dividing the same, except the suit property, which is allegedly still joint and undivided and therefore, the suit property is liable to be partitioned in metes and bounds. But during his cross examination by the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.5, namely, Jagabandhu Samartha, O.P.W. No.1 (present Appellant) admitted/stated vide Paragraphs 15 to 23 as follows:
" 15. There is no such endorsement in Ext.1 to the effect that the contents of Ext.1 was read over and explained to the parties.
16. At the time of sale of the alleged property I came to know that the same has been sold.
17. I have not filed any case before any authority in order to make the sale deed illegal and void.
18. I have not taken any step to make correction of the R.O.R. which is recorded in the name of Arta Samartha and Bhima Samartha.
19. I cannot say in whose name the consolidation R.O.R. in respect of the suit property stands recorded.Page 14 of 23 LAA No.108 of 2018
20. The ancestral property of Bhima Samartha and myself stands recorded jointly till yet.
21. The suit property is not the ancestral property of the parties and it is the self acquired property of Bhima Samartha and Arta Samartha.
22. I have not sought for relief of declaration in T.S.529/12 before the Addl. C.J. (S.D.), Puri but I have sought for partition and injunction in that suit.
23. It is false to say that the Ext.1 is a forged document and it has been prepared for the purpose of this case and that the consideration money under Ext.2 has been given by Arta Samartha and Bhima Samartha out of their own income and that I am not entitled to any compensation in respect of the acquired land."
(Emphasis supplied) Similarly, while being cross examined by the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2, namely, Bhagaban Samartha, vide Paragraphs 25 and 26 of his cross examination, the present Appellant stated/admitted as follows:
" 25. Arta Samartha, the father of Bhagaban Samartha is entitled to half share out of the suit property.
26. I have no manner of right over the property of the legal heirs of Arta Samartha. So I have no objection in respect of the compensation awarded to them."Page 15 of 23 LAA No.108 of 2018
12. As is revealed from the ROR, which is marked as Ext.7, the concerned land, which was acquired by the State, stood jointly recorded in the name of Arta Samartha, S/o Dama Samartha and Bhima Samartha, S/o Ganda Samartha.
13. Apart from observing in the impugned judgment that where a document is required by law registrable, but has not been registered, is not admissible in evidence and the document marked as Ext.1 affecting immovable property requires registration but has not been registered and the same is not admissible evidence as per section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, the Court below, vide Paragraph 6, also observed as follows:
" 6. xxx On perusal of the document Ext.7 which is the R.O.R. under khata No.1093/33 and a vital document in the context of the present case, it is found that the land under khata No.1093/33 hereinafter called the acquired land, stands recorded in the names of Arta Samartha and Bhima Samartha jointly. As found from the case record both the recorded tenants are dead. The Ops No. 2 to 4 and 6 are the legal heirs and successors of late Arta Samartha. Similarly, O.ps. No.5 and 7 are the legal heirs and successors of late Bhima Samartha. It is pertinent to mention here that while deciding a reference U/s. 30 of the LA Act the court is to see whether the claimant has got title over the acquired land or in the absence of title deeds effective occupation. The party in possession is prima facie Page 16 of 23 LAA No.108 of 2018 entitled to the compensation amount paid for the land acquired unless someone else establishes a better claim. In the case at hand the Ops. No.2 to 4 and 6 being the legal heirs and successors of late Arta Samartha have half interest over the acquired land. Likewise, the O.ps. No. 5 and 7 being the legal heirs and successors of late Bhima Samartha have half interest.
xxx It is of course true that an entry in revenue record of right does not create or extinguish title, but it bears a presumptive value on title and it shall be presumed to be correct unless and until the contrary is proved. There is nothing on record to suggest that the O.p. No.1 Sahadeb Samartha has any manner of right, title, interest over the properties under Khata No.1093/33.
xxx"
14. From the pleadings and evidence on record, it is amply clear that though the present Appellant, who was the Opposite Party No.1 before the Court below, took a plea of pendency of T.S. No.529 of 2012 before the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri, but neither exhibited the copy of the Plaint nor the injunction order passed by the said Court in order to bring to the notice of the Court below as to what was the exact prayer made in the said suit and what injunctory order was passed by the said Court, which was made absolute till disposal of the said case and what was the status of the said suit as on the date of his cross examination as P.W.1. Page 17 of 23 LAA No.108 of 2018 Rather, during his cross examination by learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.4 namely, Jagabandhu Samartha, the Appellant admitted that he has not filed any case before any authority in order to make the sale deed illegal and void. He has also admitted during his cross examination that he has not taken any steps for correction of ROR, which is recorded in the name of Arta Samartha and Bhima Samartha and he cannot say in whose name the ROR in respect of the suit property stands recorded. He has further admitted during his cross examination that the ancestral property of Bhima Samartha and himself stands recorded jointly till date and the suit property is not the ancestral property of the parties and it is the self acquired property of Bhima Samartha and Arta Samartha. On being asked, vide Paragraph 22 of his cross examination, he has further admitted that he has not sought for relief of declaration in T.S. No. 529 of 2012 before the Addl. Civil Judge (S.D.), Puri, but has sought for partition and injunction in that suit without exhibiting the copy of the Plaint or Order passed by the said Court to make known to the referral Court as to what is the exact relief sought for in the suit and injunctory order passed by the said Court. So far as Arta Samartha, who is the late father of the present Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, the Appellant, while being cross examined as O.P.W. No.1 by the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 namely, Bhagaban Page 18 of 23 LAA No.108 of 2018 Samartha (present Respondent No.2) has also admitted that Arta Samartha, the father of Bhagaban Samartha is entitled to half share out of the suit property and he has no manner of right over the property of the legal heirs of Arta Samartha and he has no objection in respect of the compensation awarded to them. He has also admitted during his cross examination on recall dated 07.09.2017 that after the death of Arta Samartha, his three sons (present Respondent Nos. 2 to 4) are in possession over the property of Arta Samartha and after the death of Arta, his elder son Bhagaban is looking after the family property.
15. So far as judgment of this Court in Satyabadi Pradhan (supra) cited by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, this Court, vide Paragraph-11, held as follows:
" 11. It is not disputed at the Bar that it is the settled principle of law that in a proceeding under Section 30 of the Act, 1894, the Court while adjudicating a reference has the jurisdiction to decide all questions arising between the parties relating to right, title, interest and possession of the acquired property and all questions incidentally thereto. Since both the parties admit to that legal position, no citation in support of this settled position is noted herein. While deciding an issue of this nature relating to apportionment, the primary factor, which is to be considered is as to who is entitled to the compensation. According to the provision in the Act, 1894 "a person interested" is entitled to the compensation. Section Page 19 of 23 LAA No.108 of 2018 3(6) of the Act provides that "the expression "person interested" includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under this Act and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land". It has to be found out as to which of the parties satisfy the criteria as "person interested".
(Emphasis supplied) Similarly, in Pitambar Sahoo (supra), interpreting the definition of "person interested" as defined under section 3(b) of the Act, 1894, this Court held that the said definition is not exclusive but inclusive in nature and must be liberally construed so as to embrace all persons who may be directly or indirectly interested either in the title to the land or in the quantum of compensation.
16. So far as judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the private Respondent Nos. 5 and 7 in Ghanshyam (supra), vide Paragraph 15, the apex Court held/observed as follows:
" 15. Legally an agreement to sell may not be regarded as a transaction of sale or a document transferring the proprietary rights in an immovable property but the prospective purchaser having performed his part of the contract and lawfully in possession acquires possessory title which is liable to be protected in view of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The said possessory right of the Page 20 of 23 LAA No.108 of 2018 prospective purchaser cannot be invaded by the transferor or any person claiming under him."
(Emphasis supplied)
17. The Division Bench of this Court in Khagendra Sethi (supra), vide Paragraph 22, held as follows:
" 22. It cannot be disputed that admissions made either in the pleadings or before the Court at the time of hearing of the case are admissible under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, but these admissions have to be proved in accordance with law in the subsequent suit / proceedings. Relying on photocopies of orders or documents without confronting them to the maker will lead to difficult situations and will give rise to multiplicity of litigation instead of minimizing it. The legislative intent behind providing such a discretionary power to the Court was for situations where certain admissions have been made by a party and the court is satisfied with the nature of such admission, it can pass a judgment or decree based on such admission. Power under Order 12 Rule 6 of the C.P.C. should therefore be exercised only where the admission of documents or facts is clear, unambiguous and categorical. After examining the "admission", the Court should be satisfied that it can be attributed to the Petitioner. If there is any doubt in the mind of the Court as regards the acceptability of such admission after the same is confronted to the person who made it, the Court cannot dispose of the suit in Page 21 of 23 LAA No.108 of 2018 exercise of power under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC on the basis of such admission."
18. Law is well settled that in a proceeding under section 30 of the Act, 1894, the Court, while adjudicating a reference, has jurisdiction to decide all questions arising between the Parties relating to right, title, interest and possession of the acquired property and all other questions, which are incidental thereto. Since the Appellant during his cross examination admitted various facts, as detailed in Paragraphs 11 and 14 above, this Court is of the view that the present Respondent Nos. 5 and 7 were not required to prove regarding their exclusive right, title and interest over the suit property and the Appellant has failed to prove before the Court below that he is a "person interested" entitling him to get his share of compensation, as claimed by him.
19. On perusal of the RSD marked as Ext. 5, which was entered into between Padmanava Paramaguru, as the Vendor and Arta Samartha and Bhima Samartha as Vendees, it is ascertained that there is a reference to the agreement to sale, which was marked as Ext. 1 with objection. As per the stand of the Appellant, even if it is held that the Court below erred in law to take note of Ext. 1 i.e. agreement to sale, in view of the admission made by the Appellant during his cross examination as O.P.W. No.1 that the suit property is not the ancestral property of the parties and it is the self acquired Page 22 of 23 LAA No.108 of 2018 property of Bhima Samartha and Arta Samartha and he has not filed any case before any authority in order to make the sale deed illegal and void i.e. Ext.5, though he was aware about the sale of the said property, this Court is of further view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the referral Court in L.A. Case No.257 of 2013.
20. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed.
21. In view of the admitted facts on record that Bhagaban Samartha, S/o late Arta Samartha, who is now 78 years old and suffering from various ailments, has been debarred to get his share because of the pendency of this Appeal, despite admission of the present Appellant that he has no claim against the right over the properties of the legal heirs of late Arta Samartha, the State Respondent No.1 is directed to act in terms of order passed in L.A. Case No.4 of 2009, which was confirmed by the Court below in L.A. Case No.257 of 2013, at the earliest, preferably within a period of six weeks hence. Accordingly, all the pending I.As. stand disposed of.
(S.K. MISHRA) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PADMA CHARAN DASH Designation: Personal Assistant Orissa High Court, Cuttack Reason: Authentication Dated, 21st May, 2024/Padma Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-May-2024 15:01:05 Page 23 of 23 LAA No.108 of 2018