Orissa High Court
WP(C)/8342/2020 on 18 February, 2021
W.P.(C) No. 8342 of 2020
5. 18.02.2021 Heard Mr. Gokulananda Mohapatra, learned counsel for
the Petitioner and Mr. Amiya Kumar Mishra, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3
through Virtual Mode.
This Writ Petition has been filed for a direction to the
Opposite Party No.1-Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to take up
measurement of the land in question and also for a direction to
the Opposite Party No.2-Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Laxmisagar, Bhubaneswar as well as I.I.C., Laxmisagar, P.S.
Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.3 to render necessary Police
Assistance to maintain law and order at the time of measurement
of the land. The averments made in the Writ Petition reveal that
the Petitioner was the highest bidder in auction of the land in
question, i.e., Sabik Khata No.682, Sabik Plot Nos.441 and 1695
to an extent of Ac.0.390 decimals, which corresponds to Hal
Khata No. 928/1497, Plot No.707, Hal Khata No.928/1122, Plot
No. 708 and Hal Khata No.788, Plot No.2204 of mouza-
Jharapada in the district of Khordha (for short, 'the case land').
The auction in C.P. Case No.211 of 1957 was conducted
pursuant to the direction of High Court of Kolkata. Accordingly,
a registered sale deed dated 08.02.2012 (Annexure-1) was
executed in favour of the Petitioner. Subsequently, basing upon a
requisition made by I.I.C., Laxmisagar Police Station as per the
direction of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bhubaneswar
in a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C., the Tahasildar,
2
Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.1 made an endeavour to
demarcate the land. Thereafter, the Petitioner proceeded to
construct a boundary wall around the case land, which was
vehemently opposed by the boundary tenants including Deepak
Jena and Sekhar Jena. As such, the Petitioner has filed another
Demarcation Case No.1903 of 2012 on 22.03.2012. On receipt of
the said demarcation case, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar directed
the Revenue Inspector, Laxmisagar for measurement of the land.
When the boundary tenants came to know about such direction
of the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for measurement of the land,
they initiated a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. Further,
Prahallad Kumar Agrawal-Opposite Party No.4 and Satya
Narayan Agrawal-Opposite Party No.5 filed a collusive suit in
C.S. No.422 of 2008 against Opposite Party Nos.6 and 7 in
respect of Hal Khata No.928/1497, Hal Plot No.707 measuring
an area of Ac.0.98 decimals to prevent the Petitioner from
enjoying the case land. It is his submission that after purchase of
the case land in a Court auction, he has already filed a mutation
case, which is pending, but the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar is not
taking up the matter, which compelled the Petitioner to file a
petition for demarcation of the case land. The Petitioner is not a
party to the said suit. However, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar on
the plea that the Civil Suit is pending in respect of the case land
is not taking up the measurement of the land for which the
Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.
3
Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for
the State pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 29.01.2021
has obtained written instruction from the Tahasildar,
Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.1 vide Letter No. 2007 dated
17.02.2021, which reads as follows:
"To
The Advocate General,
Odisha, Cuttack.
Sub: W.P.(C) No. 8342 of 2020 filed by Gee Bee
Nirmana Company Pvt. Ltd. represented by
its Director Sri Baldeodas Maloo -vrs-
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar & others.
Sir,
With reference to the subject cited above, I
am to say that, the petitioner has filed this writ
petition praying for issue of appropriate direction to
opposite parties for taking necessary steps to measure
the schedule of land and Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 to
give necessary protection to the petitioner and his
person to remain over the schedule land since they
are the owner in possession of the land and
purchased the same from official liquidator as per
Koklata High Court's order as the petitioner is the
highest bidder in C.P. No.211/1957 before the
Hon'ble Koklata High Court in the liquidation
proceeding.
That, the suit land relates to Mouza-Jharapada
under sabik Khata No.682, Sabik Plot No.441 area
Ac.0.390 dec. That, the sabik- hal correlation of suit
land in given below:-
Mouza-Jharapada
4
Sabik Sabik Sabik R.T. Hal Hal Hal R.T.
Khata Plot Khata Plot
682 441 Basudev Santara, 928/1497 707 Prahalad
Brundaban S Santara, Ku
Chaitanya Santara S/o- Agrawal
Mayadhar Santara caste- &&
Khandayat Vill-Nijigaon another
1695 - 788 2204 Sanatan
Moharana
& others
That, from the above land schedule it is seen that, the
land in question does not stand recorded in favour of the
petitioner nor the land is free from litigation. However, in the
year 2012 one demarcation case was taken up after receipt of
one requisition from I.I.C., Laxmisagar as per direction of
Additional D.C.P., Bhubaneswar u/s Cr.P.C. 144, but could
not be accomplished due to strong protest made by
neighboring tenants at the time of demarcation.
In view of the above, demarcation of the suit land
neither recorded in his name nor under his possession, is not
possible due to highly disputed in nature. Hence, the writ
petition is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.
I would therefore request you to please place the above
fact before the Hon'ble Court for kind perusal & order.
Yours faithfully,
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar"
It is his submission that since the case land has not yet
been recorded in the name of the Petitioner and the Petitioner is
not in a possession over the said land, no measurement of the
case land could be taken up. As such, the Petitioner should take
step for recording of the case land in his name at the first
instance before making any prayer for demarcation of the land in
question.
5
Taking into consideration the submissions made by
learned counsel for the Parties, this Court is of the considered
opinion that since the Petitioner has already filed the mutation
case before the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, he will do the needful
in the matter. Measurement of the case land being a part of the
procedure while proceeding in the mutation case, no further
direction for demarcation and measurement of the case land is
necessary in the instant case.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with an
observation that it is open to the Petitioner to pursue the mutation
case stated to have been filed before the Tahasildar,
Bhubaneswar for recording of the case land in its name and in
that event, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar will do the needful in
accordance with law.
Authenticated copy of this order downloaded from the
website of this Court shall be treated at par with certified copy in
the manner prescribed in this Court's Notice No.4587 dated
25.03.2020.
.................................
bct K.R. Mohapatra, J.
