Back
SANJU PANDA
Temburu Ramesh – Appellant
Versus
Collector, Gajapati – Respondent
Key Points: - The petitioners were found in unauthorized occupation of land belonging to a Scheduled Tribe and were liable to eviction under Regulation 1956 Sec. 3-A after due enquiry (!) (!) . - Regulation 1956 Sec. 3-A authorizes eviction and restoration of possession to the ST member or his heirs after due hearing, with references to probative process and reporting to Grama Panchayat (!) (!) . - Adverse possession requires proof of possession started in a manner acknowledging owner’s title and lasting 12 years, which was not proven by petitioners in this case (!) (!) . - Documentary evidence like an unregistered sale deed or its Xerox copy is not a valid transfer document to show ownership or transfer in absence of original, impacting possession legitimacy (!) (!) . - The Collector’s order in Regulation Appeal No.1 of 1990 and subsequent findings were upheld, and writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
S. PANDA, J. — In this writ petition challenge has been made to the order dated 19th November, 1994 passed by the Collector, Gajapati in Regulation Appeal No.1 of 1990 dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appellants and their successors-in-interest were found to be in unauthorized occupation of the schedule land and directing the Tahasildar to evict them from the disputed land and restore the possession to the present opposite party No.3 who is the successor-in-interest of the recorded land holder under the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (By Scheduled Tribes) Regulations, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “Regulation 1956”).
2. The facts of the case are as follows :
The disputed property measuring an area of Ac.2.320 decs. is situated in Plot No.413 under Khata No.13 in mouza Padmapur under Parlakhemundi P.S. in the district of Gajapati. Trinath Samal, the present opposite party No.3, filed RMC No.66 of 1988 for restoration of the disputed land to him as the transfer of the land was in violation of Section 3(2) of Regulation 1956. He further asserted that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe being “Saba¬ra” and the petitioners were Non-Scheduled Trib
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
