Orissa High Court
Smt. Jhankaran (Dead) After Her Ramlal ... vs Member, Board Of Revenue And Ors. on 23 March, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1995(II)OLR453
JUDGMENT S. Chatterji, J.
1. The present writ application at the instance of the petitioners Ramlal Oram and Minchi Oram claiming to be grandson and daughter of Bhima Oram challenges the impugned order dated 24-1-1985 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Sambalpur in V. P. A. Case No. 2 of 1979 and also the decision made on 30-5-1989 by the Member, Board of Revenue in V.P.A.R.C. Case No. 6 of 1985, copies whereof are annexed as Annexures-2 and 3 to the writ application. Their further prayer for declaring opposite party No. 4 Chunilal Oram as not performing seba puja at the time of vesting and in lieu of the same, he was not possessing the case land and that the petitioners being substituted in place of Smt. Jhankaran, wife of late Bhima Jhankar were actually cultivating and possessing the entire case land at the time of vesting and as such, entitled for settlement of the entire case land.
2. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the petition on record. We find that the revisional authority viz. the Member. Board of Revenue has discussed the facts of the case in details and in depth. It was found that Suku Jhankar was the original Jhankar of the land. A Jhankar appears to be a village priest who enjoys Jhankar Jagir land for performing seba puja of the village deity. Suku was succeeded by Bhima Jhankar, his son. Bima Jhankar thus became the Jhankar. Bhima Jhankar died more than 19 years prior to the vesting of the land. He died without leaving any male issue. On his death, his widow Srimati Jhankar allegedly continued to be in possession of the land. Khepai was found to be the brother of Suku, Jharu is Khepai's son. Chunilal is the son of Jharu and grandson of Khepai. Admittedly, the case land vested in the State on 1-7-1365. In accordance with Sections 3 and 4 of Orissa Offices of Village Police (Abolition) Act, on the abolition of the Jhankar Jagir lands, 50% of the lands should be settled with rights of occupancy with the Village Officer and his co-sharers and tenants and the balance 50% of the land will be continued as Jagir land for the seba puja of the daity and to be held by the Jhankar so long he discharges the duties of a village priest. It is observed in the impugned order that on the date of vesting notification, there was no village priest except Srimati Jhankaran who was in possession of the land and getting the necessary seba puja of the village deity done through her agents and others. It was, therefore, wrong for the Courts below to record jointly Ac. 2.18 decimals of land in favour of the revision petitioner Srimati Jhankaran and opposite party No. 1 Chunilal and also allowing Ac. 2.17 decimals of the Jhankar Jagir land on conditional/ service basis in favour of Chunilal. It was claimed that in the 145 Cr PC case, order was passed on 26-3-1968 immediately after vesting and there was a finding that the case land is under the possession of Srimati Jhankaran. Stating all these facts, the order of the Additional District Magistrate was challenged.
3. Considering all these materials on record, the Member, Board of Revenue has held that after Suku, Bhima Jhankar became the Jhankar and he (Bima Jhankar) died sometime in the year 1947. After Bhima's death' Chunilal Oram was appointed as Jhankar of the village by the Collector, Sambalpur with effect from 12-5-1948. After serving as Jhankar for several years, Chunilal was dismissed by local S.D.O from Jhankarship from 8-3-195B. Again he was reinstated by the Additional District Magistrate, Sambalpur on 30-6-1958 vide order in R. C. Case No. 8/3-1 of 1958-59. The Register of 'Kotwal' maintained by the local revenue authorities shows that Bhima died issueless and his wife could not get the seba puja of the village deity performed as per the local customs. Chunilal was appointed by the revenue authorities as Jhankar of the village for doing seba puja of the village deity. The revisional authority has correctly found that Jhankar Jagir land is not heritable as it is only burdened with service. He has held that Chunilal was the appointed Jhankar on the date of vesting and of abolition of Jhankar Jagir land and even now the village deity exists and Chunilal performs the seba puja as Jhankar priest of the village. The 50% of the Jhankar land meant to be held so long as duties are performed has been allowed to be held by Chunilal as Jhankar priest on the date of vesting and continued to do the seba puja since then and even now. Recording as such and considering accordingly, the Member, Board of Revenue has correctly found that on the admitted date of vesting i. e. on 1-7-1965 Chunilal Oram was found to be the appointed Jhankar priest of the village. Since Jhankar priest is not heritable and it is only burdened with the service, the claim and the counter claim with regard to the line of succession is not warranted. In view of the order dated 23-6-1979 of the Additional Tahasildar in V. P. A. Case No.75 of 1965-66, necessary spot enquiry was made by the Additional Tahasildar and after taking evidence of the villagers, the Additional Tahasildar has come to the conclusion that 50% of the land that is Ac. 2. 17 decimals should be kept as 'Moufi' land in village Khetrajur for doing seba puja of the village deity and given to the appointed Jhankar/priest opposite party Chunilal Oram conditionally for so long he performs the seba puja duties and the balance 50% of the land should be settled in favour of Chunilal Oram and Srimati Jhankaran from the date of rights of occupancy with fair and equitable rent. The order is consistent with the provisions of Sections 4(1) and 3(1) (e) proviso of the Orissa Offices of Village Police (Abolition) Act, 1966.
4. Patiently hearing learned counsel for both the parties and looking at the materials on record, we do not find that the decision of the Member, Board of Revenue is either contrary to or inconsistent with the materials on record and the provisions of the relevant Act as observed above. Since we do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioners, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Member, Board of Revenue. The petition fails and hence is rejected. No order as to costs.
R.K. Patra, J.
5. I agree.