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

2016 Supreme(Ori) 264

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
S. PANDA & K.R. MOHAPATRA, JJ.
Sanatan Acharya – Petitioner
Versus
Tahasildar, Panposh & Others – Opposite Parties
W.P. (C) No. 9839 of 2014
Decided On : 20-06-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M/s. N.K. Sahu & B. Swain.
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Kishore Mishra, A.G.A.

Tahasildar's duty to implement superior court orders regarding ROR entries and the jurisdiction to correct ROR under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1953.

Headnote:

Land Dispute - Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1953 - Section 15(b)

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner seeks to quash an order rejecting his application for correction of the record of rights (ROR) for a leased land. The petitioner was a displaced person and had leased the land in 1956. Despite a direction from the Additional Commissioner to record the land in the petitioner's name, the Tahasildar rejected the application, alleging lack of possession.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner was granted the lease and was in possession of the land. The Tahasildar's rejection of the application was deemed to be beyond his jurisdiction, and the court quashed the order, directing the Tahasildar to correct the ROR in the petitioner's name.

Issues: Dispute over possession and recording of leased land in ROR, Jurisdiction of Tahasildar to implement orders from the Additional Commissioner

Ratio Decidendi: The Tahasildar exceeded his jurisdiction in rejecting the application and was directed to implement the order of the Additional Commissioner. The court emphasized the Tahasildar's duty to carry out superior court orders regarding ROR entries.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the order rejecting the petitioner's application was quashed. The Tahasildar was directed to correct the ROR in the petitioner's name and act in accordance with the direction of the Additional Commissioner.

JUDGMENT :

K.R. Mohapatra, J.

1. The petitioner in this writ petition seeks for a direction to quash order dated 12.03.2014 passed by the Tahasildar, Panposh district Sundargarh in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2014 pursuant to the direction of the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur dated 07.07.2012 in R.P. Case No. 240 of 2012.

2. The admitted facts in nut shell is that one Sanatana Acharya, the petitioner, who is a displaced person of village Tumkela due to acquisition of his land during 1954-55 for establishment of Rourkela Steel Plant, made an application on 04.06.1956 for lease of house site and agricultural land in village Kuanarmunda. Accordingly, Lease Case No.71/1956-57 was initiated. After following due procedure of law, the S.D.O., Panposh granted lease of an area measuring Ac.1.50 decimal out of Sabik Plot No.706/4, Khata No.250, Kisam house site. Since then, the petitioner remained in possession of the land leased out in his favour exercising his right thereon. The Settlement Operation in village Kuanarmunda started in the year 1963-64. The petitioner could not take appropriate step in the Settlement proceeding to record the leasehold land in his name. The leasehold land of the petitioner was bifurcated into Hal Plot Nos.1240 and 1240/3176 measuring an area Ac.0.86 decimal and Ac.0.64 decimal respectively and recorded in Hal Khata No.397 (for short, ‘the case land’). In the Hal Settlement, the case land was recorded in favour of the State Government reflecting possession of one Minaketan Padhi and Surendra Kumar Singhdeo in the remarks column. The petitioner subsequently filed Mutation Case No. 493/96 to record the case land in his name on the basis of the lease granted in his favour. The Tahasildar, Kuanarmunda rejected the Mutation Case due to lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner filed RP Case No. 240 of 2012 under Section 15(b) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1953 (for short the ‘OSS Act’). The R.P. Case was disposed of vide order dated 07.07.2012 by the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur (for short, ‘the Additional Commissioner’) with a direction to the Tahasildar, Kuanarmunda to record the case land in the name of the petitioner on Rayati status with usual and equitable rent after deletion of the note made in the remarks column and to give effect to the order both in map and in record. However, the Tahasildar, Panposh, Kuanarmunda did not take any step for correction of record of right pursuant to the direction of the Additional Commissioner in RP Case No.240 of 2012. As such, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.19951 of 2013 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 29.11.2013 with a direction to the Tahasildar, Panposh to take a decision on the application of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Accordingly, the petition filed by the petitioner for correction of ROR was registered as Misc. Case No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Tahasildar, Panposh. The case was adjourned to different dates and finally vide order dated 13.03.2014, Tahasildar, Panposh (O.P. No.1) rejected the Misc. Case No.1 of 2014 on the ground that the petitioner was never in possession over the case land. Thus, this writ petition has been filed assailing the said order.

3. Mr.N.K.Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the averments made in Writ petition submitted that vide Lease Case No.71/1956-57, the case land was leased out in favour of the petitioner. The Settlement proceeding was initiated in village Kuanarmunda in the year 1963-64. By that time, the petitioner was residing at Rourkela as he had got an appointment in Rourkela Steel Plant under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. Thus, he could not take appropriate step with regard to the case land in his name. However, during attestation stage of the Settlement operation in the year, 1968, the Settlement Author




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