Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Mr. S.C. Satapathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the deity Chaitnya Dev is neither proprietor nor owner of the property. Therefore, the claim made by Prafulla Chandra Mishra as Trustee of Chaitanya Dev Badamath has no locus standi, rather, relying upon the documents under Annexures-2 and 7, he contended that the deity Radhakanta Dev was the proprietor of Deregistration No.12966 under which Khata Nos.194 and 195 were recorded in favour of Hari Ram as stitiban tenant. The draft Khatian under Annexure-A/1 shows the name of Radhakanta Dev, whose name was deleted, due to abolition of intermediary interest, and Muralidhar Modi and others recorded as stitiban tenants. Therefore, the deity Chaitanya Dev had no right over the case land at any point of time. It is further contended that opposite party no.1, who was the petitioner in SRP No.77 of 2014, filed the said case without annexing copy of the Settlement ROR, which // 6 // was impugned therein, and it was mandatory for him to file the certified copy of Hal ROR as per Section 15(b) of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act. Due to non- filing of the said ROR, wrong plot numbers and khata numbers are mentioned, which resulted in passing a defective order. More so, the deity has also not filed any limitation petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning delay of 37 years, whereas Section 15(b) of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act provides that the revision application can be made one year from the date of final publication of ROR or thereafter. It is further contended that sl. no.8 of Schedule-I of the Orissa Survey Settlement Rules, 1962 under the heading nature of document, claim, etc. provides application for revision under Sections 6D, 15 or 25 lies to the Board of Revenue within two years from the date of final publication of record sought to be revised. Section 34 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act states that subject to the provision of next following section every appeal presented and application made after the period of limitation specified therefor shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a // 7 // defence. Similarly, Section 35 of the said Act states that subject to the provisions of the Act, except Sections 6,7, 8, 9, 19 and 20, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply to all appeals and applications mentioned in Section 34. Therefore, it is contended that the Commissioner, Consolidation, Odisha has passed the impugned order without taking into consideration the procedures and, as such, the direction given to change of Consolidation ROR cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon Fakir Gahir v. Settlement Officer, Vol. 34(1992) OJD 39 (Civil); Krushna Chandra Mahakul v. State of Odisha, 2003(II) OLR 306; Vidya Sagar v. Swdesh Kumar, AIR 1975 SC 2295; Biswanath Padhi v. Tahasildar, Athagarh, 1986 (II) OLR 413 and Durga Charan Roul v. Bhagirathi Roul, 2017 (II) ILR CUT-1240.