Orissa High Court
WP(C)/9935/2021 on 24 March, 2021
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
W.P.(C) No. 9935 of 2021
2. 24.03.2021 Heard Mr. Prasanna Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.
Swayambhu Mishra, learned Additional
Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Petitioners, in this writ petition pray for a
direction to set aside the order dated
05.02.2021 (Annexure-4) passed by Collector &
District Magistrate, Bargarh-opposite party
No.2.
3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that in OLR Case No.3367
of 1976, an area of Ac.5.74 decimal pertaining
to plot Nos.311/29 and 311/30 under Khata
No.161 in mouza Sukutapali in the district of
Bargarh was declared ceiling surplus holding of
one Shyam Sundar Dora (predecessor of
opposite Party Nos.4 and 5) and Hema Chandra
Dora (OP No.4). Subsequently, the land in
question was distributed amongst the
petitioners in OLR Lease Case No.11 of 1984.
When the matter stood thus, the order passed
by the Revenue Officer was assailed by the land
owners in OLR Appeal No.60 of 1985 in which
direction was issued to confirm the draft
settlement and to cancel the Patta granted in
favour of the petitioners in OLR Lease Case No.
2
3367 of 1976. Accordingly, petitioners, who are
beneficiaries of such distribution of ceiling
surplus land preferred OLR Appeal No.13 of
1992. In the meantime, land owners moved the
learned Civil Court in TS No.57 of 1992 and
learned Munsif, Bargarh restrained the present
petitioners from entering upon the land in
question. The said judgment was never
challenged in any higher forum and it reached
its finality. Later on, Consolidation Officer,
Bargarh took up the Remand Revision Case
No.684 of 1997 and held that the petitioners are
in possession over the land in question vide his
order dated 17.07.2001, but the said order
dated 17.07.2001 passed by the Consolidation
Officer, Bargarh was set aside by the Deputy
Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Samabpur
in his order dated 21.05.2002 in Consolidation
Appeal No.12 of 2001. The said order dated
21.05.2002 was also not challenged by the
petitioners. It also reveals from the order under
Annexure-4 passed by the Collector, Bargarh
(OP No.2) that Consolidation ROR in respect of
plot Nos.311/29 and 311/30 of Sukutapali
mouza stands recorded in the name of the land
owners.
3
3.1 When the matter stood thus, the
petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.7377 of 2018 with a
prayer to settle the land in question in favour of
the petitioners through lease pursuant to the
order passed in OLR Case No.3376 of 1976 and
in the alternative they prayed for a direction to
the Revenue authority to allot alternate suitable
site in their favour. The said writ petition was
disposed of on 18.05.2018, which is quoted
below:-
"The petitioners are stated to have
filed a representation vide Annexure-1
series before the Collector, Bargarh-O.P.
No.2 for redressal of their grievance.
Without going into the merit of the
case, the writ petition is disposed of,
directing the Collector, Bargarh-O.P.No.2
to dispose of the representation of the
petitioners vide Annexure-1 Series in
accordance with law within six months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy
of this order.
The petitioners are directed to
supply a copy of the writ application
containing all the Annexures along with a
certified copy of this Order to the
Collector, Bargarh-O.P. No.2 for
convenience & reference to Annexure-1
Series.
Till disposal of the representation of
the petitioners vide Annexure-1 Series,
parties are directed to maintain status quo
over the property in question.
The writ application is accordingly
disposed of."
4
Accordingly, the Collector, Bargarh took up the
matter and passed the impugned order dated
05.02.2021 under Annexure-4.
4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that in W.P.(C) No.7377 of
2018, the petitioners had made two prayers;
one for settlement of allotted land in their
favour and in the alternative prayed for allotting
any alternate site in their favour. Although
pursuant to order dated 18.05.2018 passed in
W.P.(C) No.7377 of 2018, the Collector, Bargarh
considered the representation, but has failed to
consider the allotment of alternate site in their
favour. In that view of the matter he prays for a
direction to the Revenue authorities, more
particularly opposite party No.2-Collector,
Bargarh to allot an alternate site in their favour.
5. Mr. Mishra, learned ASC vehemently
objected to the above submission. Referring to
paragraph-11 of the writ petition he submits
that the petitioners had made two alternative
prayers in the earlier writ petition, as aforesaid,
but this Court, while disposing of the said writ
petition, vide order dated 18.05.2018, directed
the Collector, Bargarh to dispose of the
representation of the petitioners as at
Annexure-1 series in accordance with law
5
within a period of six months. There was no
direction to the Collector, Bargarh for
consideration of the case of the petitioners for
allotment of the alternate site. As such, there is
no infirmity in the order passed in Annexure-4.
He further submitted that the Collector,
Bargarh is not competent to allot any alternate
site pursuant to representation filed by the
petitioners. He, accordingly prays for dismissal
of the writ petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the materials placed on record,
more particularly Annexure-4, the impugned
order. It appears that although the petitioners
were allotted with the ceiling surplus land of
Shyam Sundar Dora and Hema Chandra Dora,
but subsequently the said order was set aside
and consequently, the consolidation record has
been published in the name of said Shyam
Sundar Dora and Hema Chandra Dora (opposite
party 4). Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioners could not produce any material to
establish the case of the petitioners for
allotment/settlement of the land in question in
their favour. He, however, submits that the
Collector, Bargarh ought to have considered the
allotment/settlement of alternate site in their
6
favour as benefit granted to the petitioners, who
are landless persons, have been taken away
making them landless again. Such a prayer
made by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioners, cannot be entertained in this writ
petition. There is a definite procedure for
allotment/settlement of the government land.
Petitioners have not followed the established
procedure of law for settlement of Government
land, as yet.
7. On perusal of Annexure-4, I find there is
no infirmity in the impugned order in view of
the facts narrated above. It appears that the
Collector, Bargarh narrating the facts and
discussing the case of the petitioners in detail
has come to a conclusion that the petitioners
are not entitled to any relief as sought for.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and
the same is dismissed as such.
................................
K.R. MOHAPATRA,J.
ss