Orissa High Court
Court vs State Of Orissa & on 17 July, 2018
Author: Biswanath Rath
Bench: Biswanath Rath
W.P.(C) No.26502 of 2013
14. 17.07.2018 Heard Shri N.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Shri A.K. Mishra, learned Additional
Government Advocate. The notice on opposite party no.7
be treated as sufficient.
This writ petition has been filed assailing the
impugned orders at Annexures-16 & 18.
Short background involved in the case is that
originally the land was allotted in favour of one Rama
Bhoi by virtue of order in the Lease Case No.406 of 1974.
Rama Bhoi sold Ac.1.00 decimal of land to one Smt.
Droupadi Mahalik by virtue of registered sale deed.
Droupadi applied permission for sale of the disputed land
to some non-scheduled caste persons following the
provisions contained under Section 22 of the O.L.R. Act,
which was registered as Revenue Misc. Case no.441 of
1982. It appears, the application at the instance of
Droupadi was allowed vide Annexure-4. In the meantime,
said Droupadi on the basis of permission granted by the
competent authority sold 0.300decimals of land to one
Rabindra Kumar Mishra and delivered possession to him
accordingly. In the meantime, the Additional District
Magistrate, Bhubaneswar initiated a suo motu Revision
Case vide OGLS Revision Case no.705/1987 under
Section 7-A(3) of the OGLS Act for cancellation of the
lease granted in favour of the original lessee Rama Bhoi.
The lease was cancelled. Here Shri Sahoo, learned
counsel for the petitioner alleges that the suo motu
proceeding was initiated after 14 years of the date of lease
case. However, this has got no relevancy at this stage
2
keeping in view the subsequent developments taking
place in the meantime. In the meantime, Rabindra Kumar
Mishra the purchaser of the land from Droupadi filed a
suit vide T.S. No.21 of 1994 challenging the cancellation
of the lease order and for declaration of his title over his
purchased area of Ac.0.300dec. This suit was decreed
declaring the cancellation of the deed as bad and further
declaring the right, title, interest and possession of the
Rabindra Kumar Mishra, thereby permanently restraining
the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession
of the plaintiff involving the disputed property. While the
matter stood thus, Rabindra Kumar Mishra filed an
application under Rule 32 of the Orissa Survey
Settlement Rules before the Tahasildar seeking correction
of the Record of Rights taking reliance of the judgment
and decree in the suit indicated hereinabove. It appears,
the Tahasildar directed for correction of the Record of
Rights and accordingly, a corrected Record of Rights has
been prepared. In the meantime, Rabindra Kumar Mishra
filed O.L.R. Case no.6047 of 2007 for conversion of his
purchased property to Gharabari, which application
being allowed, again a corrected R.O.R. was issued.
Consequently, rent is also paid being accepted by the
State authority. It is, at this stage Rabindra Kumar
Mishra by dividing the disputed plot sold Ac.0.150
decimals of land to the present petitioner vide Registered
Sale Deed No.10411 and also delivered the possession in
his favour. The petitioner, for the sale deed and delivery
of possession involved herein, as a consequence of
purchase hereinabove filed Rent Case No.14383 of 2013
3
praying for correction of the Record of Rights and also for
acceptance of the rent. Learned counsel for the petitioner
alleged that this matter has been disposed of by the
Assistant Settlement Officer in a just three lines order
and the Settlement Appeal Case No.1590 of 2013 being
preferred, the appeal has been simply dropped without
any discussion on the merit of the case solely with
observation that the petitioner did not file any supportive
documents.
Assailing the impugned order, Shri Sahoo, learned
counsel for the petitioner on reiteration of the
developments taken place in the meantime and recorded
hereinabove, submitted that the Assistant Settlement
Officer ought to have allowed the application at the
instance of the petitioner and further, the appellate
authority in spite of having jurisdiction simply dropped
the proceeding. Shri Sahu, learned counsel for the
petitioner also urged that for the settled position of law
hold that the Settlement Authorities are bound by Civil
Court decree and also the order passed by the Revenue
authorities. In the circumstances, Shri Sahu submitted
that both the authorities have failed in discharging their
duties entrusted upon them and thus, a prayer is made
to this Court for interfering in the impugned orders and
setting aside the same.
In his objection, though not disputing the
developments taken place narrated hereinabove at least
up to till sale of the land in favour of the petitioner by his
vendor Rabindra Kumar Mishra, Shri A.K. Mishra,
learned Additional Government Advocate taking this
4
Court to the impugned order passed by the Additional
Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar at Annexure-18 submitted
that for the recordings of the Additional Sub-Collector
therein that the petitioner failed in producing the records,
the Additional Sub-Collector had no other option than to
drop the proceeding.
It is at this stage of the matter, learned counsel for
the petitioner taking this Court to the materials available
on record submitted that the petitioner has already filed
all necessary documents and the Additional Sub-Collector
has passed the order without looking to the same.
Be that as it may, considering the observations of
the appellate authority as well as the original authority,
this Court finds, there is no consideration of the merit
involving the case by the original authority. There is
complete ignorance to the civil court decree obtained in
the process. Further, since the petitioner has an appeal
remedy and appeal was against the order vide
Annexure-16, the Additional Sub-Collector was duty
bound to enter into the merit of the case and thereby
pass appropriate order. Finding the impugned order being
passed entering into the merit of the case and without
assigning any reason, both the orders vide Annexures-16
& 18 are not sustainable in the eye of law. It is, at this
stage, considering that the matter is required to be
considered at its original stage, this Court while
interfering in the impugned orders vide Annexures-16 &
18 setting aside the same, and directs for fresh
adjudication of the Rent Case No.14383 of 2013. This
Court, accordingly, remits the matter back to the
5
Settlement Officer, Settlement Office, At-Jobra, Dist.-
Cuttack for fresh hearing of the Rent Case no.14383 of
2013. The Settlement Officer is directed to take a final
decision in the matter after entering into the merit of the
case and assigning reasons thereon. The entire
proceeding shall be concluded within a period of four
months from the date of appearance of the parties.
Considering the citations cited by Shri Sahoo in the case
of Smt. Manjubal Patnaik versus State of Orissa &
others as reported in 2000(I) OLR 530, this Court
observes, the Settlement Authority is bound by the
decision of the Civil Court and the Revenue Authority
even.
Since the matter is decided in presence of the
petitioner, this Court directs the petitioner to appear
before the Settlement Officer, Settlement Office, At-Jobra,
Dist.-Cuttack along with a certified copy of this order by
2nd of August, 2018.
The writ petition succeeds but however, with the
above observation and direction.
Issue urgent certified copy on proper application.
............................
(Biswanath Rath, J.) Ayas 6