Back
High Court Of Orissa
H. L. AGRAWAL, P. C. MISRA
ALEKH CHANDRA RATH - Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF LAND RECORDS AND SETTLEMENT, ORISSA - Respondent
O. J. C. 912 Of 1980
Decided On : 05/01/1989
LAND REVENUE - RECORD OF RIGHTS - CORRECTION - JURISDICTION OF COMMISSIONER OF LAND RECORDS AND SETTLEMENT TO RECALL ORDER PASSED IN REVISION - PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE - VIOLATION - RECALL OF ORDER - JURISDICTION TO BE EXERCISED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the orders of the Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Orissa, in revision case No. 3098/77 and Misc. Case No. 11/79, which corrected the record of rights in respect of a disputed property, claiming that they were not impleaded as parties and their right in the land was negatived without giving them an opportunity of being heard.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement failed to exercise jurisdiction in refusing to recall the final order passed in the revision case on the ground that the petitioners were not impleaded as parties and, therefore, had no opportunity of being heard. The court found that the petitioners had acquired valid title to the land by virtue of a lease granted by the Government and that the revisional order substantially affected their interest.
Issues: 1. Whether the Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement had jurisdiction to recall the order passed in the revision case? 2. Whether the principle of natural justice was violated by not impleading the petitioners as parties in the revision case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement had jurisdiction to recall the order passed in the revision case, as it was necessary to prevent miscarriage of justice and to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. 2. The court held that the principle of natural justice was violated by not impleading the petitioners as parties in the revision case, as their interest in the land was substantially affected by the order passed in the revision case.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order passed by the Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement in Misc. Case No. 11/79 and remitted the matter back to the Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement to dispose of the case on merits after hearing both parties.
P. C. MISRA, J.
( 1 ) THE petitioners in this writ application have prayed for quashing the order of the Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Orissa, Cuttack in Revision Case No. 3098/77 and also the order passed by the same authority in Misc. Case No. 11/79 annexed to the writ application as Annexures-9 and 15 respectively. The property in dispute measures Ac. 3. 16 decimals in Hal Settlement Khata No. 1076, comprising Hal Plot No. 4735/5164 measuring Ac. 1. 00 and Hal Plot No. 4735/ 5174 measuring Ac. 2. 16 decimals. According to the petitioners, the said property corresponds to Sabik Plot No. 4047 under Sabik Khata No. 918/14.
( 2 ) THE record of rights of the Major Settlement which was finally published some time in the year 1975 recorded Hal Plot No. 4735/5174 measuring Ac. 2. 16 decimals under Hal Khata No. 1076 in the name of the Government under Anabadi Khata. In the remarks column of the said record of rights, unauthorised possession of present opp. party No. 2 Batakrishna Pani, was recorded. He (present O. P. No. 2) filed a revision before the Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Orissa, Cuttack registered as R. P. Case No. 3096/77 praying for correction of the record of rights; (i) by describing him as the owner of the land and; (ii) correcting the area of the said plot as Ac. 2. 50 decimals in place of Ac. 2. 16 decimals. The said revision case was disposed of by the Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement by his order dated 9-11-78 (Annexure-9) partly allowing the claim of opp. party No. 2 directing correction of the record by way of taking out plot No. 4735/5174 measuring AC. 2. 16 decimals from out of Anabadi Khata No. 1076 and recording the same in the name of present opp. party No. 2. The prayer for correction of the area of the plot was refused by the same order. The present petitioner No. 1, as the Secretary of Sri Aurobindo (Kendra) Dhyana Mandir filed an application in Feb. , 1979 before the Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Orissa praying for hearing of the aforesaid revision Case No. 3098/77 afresh on the ground that the disputed land really belongs to Sri Aurobindo (Kendra) Dhyana Mandir and the present opp. party No. 2 has obtained an order in his favour in the said revision case without impleading the real owner and suppressing the relevant facts. The said application was registered as Misc. Case No. 11/79 and the Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement by his order dated 11 th Jan. , 1980 (Annexure-15) rejected the same.
The petitioner No. 1 claims to have derived title from Sri Sailaranjan Tripathy, who is petitioner No. 2 in this writ application. They have challenged the correctness of the orders of the Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement in Annexures-9 and 15.
( 3 ) IN the revision filed by Opp. party No. 2 before the Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Orissa he claimed title in respect of Ac. 2. 50 decimals of land out of Sabik plot No. 4047 through his mother Hadi Dibya, who according to him, was a permanent lessee under the Ex-intermediary Choudhury Chakradhar Mahapatra. After vesting of the intermediary interest, the O. P. 2's mother is said to have continued as a tenant under the State Government on the basis of return submitted by the exintermediary and she also continued to pay rent to the State thereafter. According to him, his mother died some time in the year 1967 leaving behind the opp. party No. 2, who was then a minor. During the settlement operation, he could not produce the relevant records in proof of his title and consequently the settlement authorities merely recorded his possession as unauthorised, in the remarks column in stead of recording the land in his name. As already stated, he also claimed that the area out of the aforesaid Sabik Plot in his possession has been wrongly shown as Ac. 2. 16 decimals in place of Ac. 2. 50 decimals. In the said revision case neither the present petitioner No. 1 nor the society whom he r
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
