Back
2014 Supreme(Ori) 51
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Dr. B.R.SARANGI, J.
Biseswar Dandpat - Petitioner
Versus
Saraswati Dei and others - Opp. Party
W.P.(C) No. 16352 of 2006
Decided On: 11th February, 2014
Advocate Appeared:
For Petitioner: M/s. R. Mohanty, A.K. Mohanty, A.P. Bose, P.K. Samantray, S.N. Biswal, S.K. Mohanty, M.R. Dash & Sumitra Mohanty
For Opp. Parties: M/s. N.C.Pati, R.Das, M.R.Dash, N. Singh & B.Das
Headnote:1. EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - Sec. 36 read with Sec. 87 - Suit - Production of map - Whether the map granted by the competent authority can be marked as exhibits for just and proper adjudication of the suit in question? - Whether the map is a public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Act? - As per provisions of Sec. 36 of the Act, there are two types of maps, namely, published map or chats offered for public sale and maps and plans made under the authority of Government - Section 36 mandates that the statement of the facts in issue made in published maps generally offered for public sale themselves constitute to be a public document and the element of public document as enshrined in Section 74 of the Act is well founded - When the competent authority has supplied the printed copy of the original on payment of requisite fees, it can be very well presumed to be accurate and the said printed maps are admissible in evidence as relevant under Sec. 36 and 83 of the Act – Printed copy of the original is the public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Act. (Paras - 7 and 8)
2. EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - Sec. 74 - Public document - A public document is such a document contents of which are of public interest and the statements are made by authorized and competent agents of the public in the course of their official duty - Public are interested in such a document and entitled to see it, so that if there is anything wrong in it they would be entitled to object - It becomes a statement that would be open to the public to challenge or dispute and therefore, it has a certain 'amount of authority. (Para - 7)
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.R.SARANGI, J. - The plaintiff-petitioner has filed this writ application assailing the order dated 29.11.2006 in Annexure-1 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rairangpur in T.S.No. 23/1995 rejecting the application to exhibit the village maps.
2. The fact of the case in nut-shell is that the plaintiff-petitioner filed Title Suit No. 23/1995 before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rairangpur praying for declaration of title over Ac. 0.1 decimal of land as found by Civil Court Commissioner and delivering the possession of the same to him by evicting defendant Nos. 1 to 3 from the said area, his easementary right of way over path and injuncting defendants permanently not to interfere with his possession. The suit was decreed on 24.11.2000. Assailing the same, some of the defendants filed Title Appeal Nos. 1 of 2001 and 2 of 2001 before the Additional District Judge, Rairangpur. After hearing the parties, learned lower appellate Court remanded the matter to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rairangpur with a direction to appoint a Civil Court Commissioner for measurement of the suit land afresh at the cost of the parties and dispose of the suit within six months.
3. After remand the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application before the Board of Revenue to obtain certified copy of the original map of mouza Bisoi and the plaintiff was accordingly directed to deposit the requisite amount to obtain the printed copy available for public sale. In view of the notification issued by the Board of Revenue dated 06.12.2003 indicating enhancement of cost of saleable maps with reference to the Government in Revenue Department letter No. 57031/2011 dated 04.02.2013 under Clause (1) wherein it is stated that village maps finally published under O.S. & S. Act and O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act, the present rate per sheet Rs. 10 has been revised rate per sheet to Rs. 25 and such notification has been issued by the Director of Land Records and Survey addressing to the various authorities of the Revenue Department. Accordingly, the plaintiff petitioner deposited the requisite fees for supply of the printed copy of the maps which has been supplied to him in conformity with the provisions of law.
4. On 09.11.2006 the plaintiff-petitioner filed 19 documents along with the said map before the trial Court to prove his case. On consideration of the same, leaned trial Court by order dated 10.11.2006 exhibited other documents excluding the village maps in consequence thereof the plaintiff-petitioner filed a petition under Section 36 and 83 of the Evidence Act read with Section 151 CPC under Annexure-3 with a prayer to recall the order dated 10.11.2006 and to mark exhibit of both sabik and hal map of mouza Bisoi which has been rejected vide impugned order dated 29.11.2006 on the ground that maps produced by the plaintiff-petitioner do not contain signature with seal and the maps purchased from a competent authority cannot be suo motu exhibited without its formal proof when the defendants dispute the genuineness of the maps.
5. Mrs. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner argued with vehemence that the map having been purchased inconsonance with the guideline issued by the Board of Revenue issuing a public document the same should have been marked as exhibits as per the provisions contained in Sections 36 and 83 of the Evidence Act. In support of her contention, she has relied upon the judgment in Secretary of State v. Chimanlal Jamnadas and others, AIR 1942 Bombay 161.
6. Mr. P.R.Barik, learned counsel for the defendant-opposite party No. 1 stated that the maps printed by the settlement authority contain the date of publication and signature of the settlement authority as required by the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1962. In the instant case, such certificate is not available in the map. Therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Court is justified.
7. Considering the rival contentions of the parties
