SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(Ori) 173

2001 (I) OLR — 53
R. K. PATRA AND S. C. DATTA, JJ.
Brundaban Patnaik...Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner, Land Record and Settlement and others...Opp. Parties
O. J. C. No. 14057 of 1997
Decided on 21st August, 1998.

Headnote:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 — Art. 227 — Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 — Sec. 15 (a) and 16 — Mutation Manual Para 17 (1) — Commissioner directed Tahasildar to cause field enquiry and correct the map, if necessary — While taking up the case under para 17 (1) of the Mutation Manual, Tahasildar will take into account the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer. (Para - 4)

ORDER

21.8.1996 — Heard Shri Behuria for the petitioner, Shri K. Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate, for opposite parties 1 and 2 and Shri N. Panda for opposite party No. 3.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ application challeng¬ing the correctness of the order dated 22.9.1997 of the Commis¬sioner, Land Records and Settlement, Orissa, Cuttack in R.P. Case No. 6774 of 1996 (Annexure-1). By the impugned order the Commis¬sioner has directed the Tahasildar to take up the case under para 17 (1) of the Mutation Manual and verify the sale deed of the petitioner to know his legal entitlements. The Commissioner has observed that the plot in question be remeasured alongwith the suit Hal Plot No. 225 and the records be corrected if found necessary. The Tahasildar has also been fur¬ther directed to ignore the possession of any excess area, if found, without valid title.

3. According to the petitioner, he has been in possession of land measuring Ac. 0.050 decimals uninterruptedly without any hindrance from any quarter although in the registered sale deed No. 8486 dated 6.10.1970, the extent of the land was noted as Ac. 0.041 decimals. In support of the petitioner’s stand that he has been in possession of land in excess of the land mentioned in the sale deed, the learned counsel for the petitioner brings to our notice the order of the Asst. Settlement Officer dated 2.9.1983 passed in Objection Case No. 1873/330 which was filed at the instance of one Bijoy Kumar Pattnaik. In the said order, the Asst. Settlement Officer has directed to record Ac. 0.047 deci¬mals in place of Ac. 0.050 decimals. The Commissioner, as submit¬ted by Shri Behuria, without taking into account the aforesaid order has illegally directed the Tahasildar to ignore petition¬er’s possession of excess area. Shri Panda appearing for Muncipal Corporation submits that there are documents which would show the petitioner is in possession of land less than Ac. 0.041 decimels.

4. Considering the submission of the counsel for parties, we dispose of this writ application with an observation that the Tahasildar while taking up of the case under para 17 (1) of the Mutation Manual, as indicated by the Commissioner, will consider the aforesaid order of the Assistant Settlement Officer and pass order according to law after hearing the parties concerned. It may be stated that we are not expressing any opinion on the merit of the claim of the petitioner.

Urgent certified copy of the order, if applied for, may be granted by tomorrow.

Application disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top