Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
S.PANDA AND K.R.MOHAPATRA, JJ.
Hariram Singhania (since dead) represented by Sharada Devi Singhania and others - Petitioners
Vs.
State of Odisha and others - Respondent
O.J.C NO.2121 OF 1999
Decided on : 30-03-2016
Orissa Estates Abolition Act - Writ Application - Section 38 (B) - 206/66, 162/71, 565/80 - The court discussed the acts and sections referenced in the judgment, including Section 38 (B) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951, and the findings and orders in O.E.A Case No.206 of 1966, O.E.A Appeal Case No.162 of 1971, and Bebondobasta Case No.565 of 1980.
Fact of the Case:
The Writ Application challenged an order setting aside a previous order related to the settlement of land under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951. The court discussed the chronological facts regarding the filing of O.E.A Cases and Appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the original petitioner's claim had been rejected on merit in previous proceedings and that the findings in those proceedings were binding on the petitioner. The court concluded that the order passed by the Addl. District Magistrate in O.E.A Appeal Case No.2 of 1993 was not sustainable.
Issues: The issues included the jurisdiction of the appellate authority to review previous orders, the binding nature of previous findings on the original petitioner, and the rejection of the petitioner's fresh claim without challenging the previous final orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the findings in previous proceedings were binding on the original petitioner and that the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to review the orders passed in previous cases.
Final Decision: The Writ Application along with Misc. Case was dismissed, and the interim order passed by the Court was vacated.
JUDGMENT :
S.Panda, J.
This Writ Application has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 02.1.1999 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack in O.E.A Revision Case No.24 of 1997 under Section 38 (B) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 setting aside the order dated 30.11.1993 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate, Sambalpur in O.E.A Appeal Case No.2 of 1993.
2. In pursuance of the order dated 01.8.2013 learned Addl. Government Advocate has produced the records and filed xerox copies of the same which are kept on record.
3. The facts narrated in the Writ Application reveal that one Hariram Singhania was the original petitioner and after his death, the petitioners being his legal heirs were impleaded in his place. O.E.A Case No.33/7-240/1965-66 was filed by one Dayanidhi Luhura and others praying for settlement of the land appertaining to Plot No.71 measuring an area of Ac.4.36 decimals and other five plots with a total area of Ac.6.18 decimals. The said case was renumbered as Jagir Case No.33/7-206/66. One Gokulananda Patel, the Ex-Gauntia also filed O.E.A Case No.33/7-228/1965-66 praying for settlement of the self same area in his favour. Both these cases were heard analogously in Jagir Case No.206 of 1966.
3.1 The then O.E.A Collector-cum-Tahasildar, Jharsuguda vide his order dated 26.12.1966 forwarded the case to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Sambalpur along with his findings for further action regarding claims made by the parties. The Sub-Divisional Officer on enquiry found that Hariram Singhania was in possession of the land and impleaded him as party to Jagir Case No.206 of 1966. Notice was issued and said Jagir Case No.206 of 1966 was disposed of on 31.8.1971 with the following findings:-
“The possession of Hariram Singhania on 01.7.1964 if accepted, a question would arise whether he can be settled in respect of the land on ‘Raiyat’ basis though instruction reveals that Jagir holdings will be settled with the Jagirdar, their heirs or any other persons in actual cultivating possession as on 01.7.1964. The possession would naturally mean authorized possession. Hariram has not been able to show any such authority, therefore, though he was in possession of the land covered by P.W.D Road (portion marked ‘B’ in the trace map dated 15.12.1966), he is not entitled for settlement of the said land. Action will be taken for recovery of possession. The claim of Gokulananda was also not accepted as he was not in possession of the land. The fact of surrender of the lands by Janaki in the year 1950 is invalid in law because it violates Section 56 (2) of Central Provinces Tenancy Act. Therefore, the possession of Gokulananda, on whom the land was surrendered by Janaki not accepted. Hariram claim possession since 1959 and during spot inspection he has stated that the walls etc. were constructed near about 1962. Therefore, the report of the Tahasildar regarding possession of Hariram for long time was not accepted as the construction of wall etc. were done five years back and the possession being that of a trespasser liable to be evicted under Central Provinces Tenancy Act. This is obviously not possible because the lands have not ceased to have the characteristic of Jagir lands envisaged in the said Act consequent on the enforcement of notification on 01.7.1964.”
3.2 The aforesaid order dated 31.8.1971 passed in Jagir Case No.206 of 1966 was challenged by Gokulananda in O.E.A Appeal Case No.162 of 1971 before the Addl. District Magistrate. The appellate authority by order dated 09.7.1973 disallowed the claim made by Gokulananda. Hence the order dated 31.8.1971 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in Jagir Case No.206 of 1966 being confirmed by the Addl. District Magistrate had become final as the Jagir land cannot be settled with other person. Thereafter neither Gokulananda nor Hariram challenged the said order before the higher forum.
4. While matter stood thus, Hariram filed a fresh O.E.A Case No.565
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
