Orissa High Court
Smt. Shamsun Bibi vs The State Of Odisha And Others... Opp. ... on 3 September, 2020
Author: S.Pujahari
Bench: S.Pujahari
CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI
W.P.(C) No.21636 of 2020
Smt. Shamsun Bibi ... Petitioner
- Versus -
The State of Odisha and others... Opp. Parties
ORDER
02. 03.09.2020 In the wake of the pandemic Covid-19, the case is taken up through V.C.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the opposite parties no.4-Settlement Officer, Kandhamal Circle and no.5- Tahasildar, Phulbani to correct the Record of Right of Hal Plot No.1999 appertaining to Hal Khata No.369 of revenue Village-Jiringipada under Kandhamal Tahasil in the district of Kandhamal by deleting the name of opposite parties no.6 to 11 to be recorded tenant thereof and recording the name of the two sons of the petitioner to be the owner of the said plot and preparing a Record of Right in their name initiating mutation proceeding vide the petition filed by the petitioner and her sons.
4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's two sons are the recorded tenant of Sabik Plot No.593/1580 appertaining to Khata No.218/423 2 measuring an area of Ac.0.036 decimals in Mouza- Jiringipada under Khandhamal Tahasil in the district of Kandhamal. Since 1983 a Gas Agency, namely, Asian Gas Service is being run by her husband after execution of the agreement with the Oil Company and, as such, the same is there in their peaceful possession and they are owner of the same. However, in the meanwhile, her husband having died, she along with her sons running the said depot, but during the last settlement operation in the year 2017, against the said plot, Hal Plot No.1999 appertaining to Hal Khata No.369 of revenue Village- Jiringipada under Kandhamal Tahasil in the district of Kandhamal has been prepared, but recorded in the name of opposite parties no.6 to 11. The same has been done behind the back of the petitioner and her sons as no notice was issued during the settlement operation inviting the objection of the recorded tenants in this regard. Thereafter, they have approached the Tahasildar and Settlement Authority to correct the aforesaid mistake and delete the names of opposite parties no.6 to 11 from the Record of Right and record the same in the name of the sons of the petitioner who were the recorded tenant in the Sabik Plot and owner thereof, but the same being still pending and no action having been taken, she has come to this Court seeking the relief as aforesaid as 3 the present recorded tenants are extending threat to dispossess them from the said land.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, during the course of hearing on admission, submits that since her two sons are the rightful owner and recorded tenant in the Sabik settlement of the land in question, but Record of Right has been prepared wrongly in Hal Settlement in the name of opposite party nos.6 to 11, that needs to be corrected by the Settlement Authority and also the Tahasildar, hence a direction in this regard be issued and pending disposal of her such petition filed for correction of the same, the opposite parties no.6 to 11 be restrained for disturbing the possessions of the petitioner in the said land.
6. But, considering the facts and submissions made, this Court is not inclined to entertain such a prayer of the petitioner inasmuch as the aforesaid Record of Right has been prepared during the settlement proceeding by the Settlement Authority and after finalization of settlement record, the Tahasildar has no jurisdiction to correct the Record of Right on the basis of the aforesaid claim of the petitioner. However, the petitioner may ventilate her grievance before the appropriate authority by filing an appropriate petition as 4 available to her or her sons under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, if so advised.
7. So far the grievance of the petitioner that for such wrong recording, they are going to be dispossessed forcibly from their peaceful possession of the land in question, needless to say that this Court cannot protect the petitioner in this writ petition on such allegation, especially when it has decided not to entertain the writ petition for reason, as aforesaid. However, if the petitioner is in settled possession, she may ventilate her grievance before the appropriate authority seeking the remedy to protect her possession, if any.
8. With the aforesaid order, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Due to difficulties faced by the parties in getting the certified copies of this order and in view of the Court's Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020, if a printout of the copy of this order from the website of the High Court is produced by the party or his counsel before the opposite party concerned, the same be treated at par with the certified copy. However, the copy so produced must be certified by the petitioner or her counsel to be the true copy of the order passed.
.......................
S.Pujahari, J.
DA 5