Back
2017 Supreme(Ori) 986
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
A.K. RATH, J.
Panchanana Behera - Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa & another - Respondents
SA No.221 of 1997
Decided On : 06-11-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Tapas Ku. Mohanty, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. R.P. Mohapatra, AGA
The judgment emphasizes the importance of legal compliance in land transactions and the implications of illegal possession on the acquisition of tenant rights.
Headnote:
OEA Act - Dispute over Land Title - Sec. 3(1) of the Orissa Communal Forest and Private Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1948 - Sec. 8(1) of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff appealed against the reversal of a suit for declaration of title and correction of ROR for a disputed land area. The plaintiff claimed to have acquired raiyati right and occupancy raiyat status, while the defendants contested the lease and claimed the land vested in the State.
Finding of the Court:
The lower appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that neither the plaintiff nor the Government had any right over the suit land, emphasizing the need to protect the interest of the deity to whom the land originally belonged.
Issues: The court addressed the status of the plaintiff and his right to be settled under Sec. 8 of the OEA Act, and the legality of the alleged lease under the OEA Act and the 1948 Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the lease was in contravention of the OEA Act and the 1948 Act, and that the plaintiff, being in illegal possession of the forest land on the date of vesting, could not be deemed a tenant under Sec. 8(1) of the OEA Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
Dr. A.K. Rath, J.
1. This is a plaintiff’s appeal against reversing judgment. The suit was for declaration of title and correction of ROR.
2. The dispute pertains to an area of Ac.0.62 dec. and 5 kadis out of Ac.47.63 dec. appertaining to Hal Khata No.1167, Plot No.3652/4108 of Mouza-Jamudiha in the district of Balasore. The kissam of the land is jungle.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit land originally belonged to Shri Shri Jagannath Jew bije Nijagad Nilgiri. Rani Indira Devi was the marfatdar of the deity. She leased out the suit land to the plaintiff in the year 1964 for a period of five years. The status of the land is jungle. He reclaimed the suit land and raised paddy crops. He used to pay rent to the marfatdar. The estate vested in the State in 1967. Thereafter, he paid rent to the State. It was further pleaded that on the date of vesting, he was in possession of the land as a leasee and acquired raiyati right. He is a settled raiyat of the village and as such, became the occupancy raiyat. The settlement authority wrongly recorded the land under Rakhit khata.
4. Defendants filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants is that the suit land originally belonged to Shri Shri Jagannath Jew bije Nijagad Nilgiri. Nilgiri estate vested in the State on 1.2.1967. The alleged patta was granted by ex-intermediary on 14.1.1964 in respect of the land, which was recorded in Rakhit khata. The suit land had been recorded as a forest land in Sabik as well as Hal ROR. The alleged lease deed was obtained by the plaintiff fraudulently with a motive to defeat the provisions of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act (“OEA Act”). The ex-intermediary leased out the forest land without prior permission of the Collector, Balasore, defendant no.1. The lease was hit under Sec. 3(1) of the Orissa Communal Forest and Private Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1948 (“1948 Act”). Further, the deity is a public deity managed by the trust board. The so-called lease was in contravention of Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1939 (“OHRE Act”).
5. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck four issues. Parties led evidence. Learned trial court held that the plaintiff has acquired the status as a tenant. He is a deemed tenant. Held so, it decreed the suit. Assailing the judgment and decree, the defendants filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Balasore, which was transferred to the court of the learned Addl. District Judge, Balasore and renumbered as M.A No.4/59 of 1996-83. The learned lower appellate court instead of deciding the appeal on merit directed the Government to consider the case of the plaintiff to lease out the land in his favour. Felt aggrieved, he approached this Court in Second Appeal No.130 of 1985. The judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate court was set aside. The matter was remitted to the learned lower appellate court to decide the status of the plaintiff and his right to be settled under Sec. 8 of the OEA Act. Learned appellate court held that the suit land originally belongs to Lord Jagannath of Nilgiri. The deity is a perpetual minor. Thus it is necessary to protect the interest of the deity. Neither the plaintiff nor the Government have any right over the suit land. Held so, it dismissed the appeal.
6. The second appeal was admitted on 19.9.1997 on the following substantial question of law:
“Whether there can be conferment of occupancy right under the provisions of the Orissa Tenancy Act and Orissa Land Reforms Act in the facts and circumstances of the case ?”
In course of hearing, the following substantial question of law was formulated;
“Whether the plaintiff is a deemed tenant under Sec. 8(1) of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act ?”
7. Heard Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Tapas Kumar Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.P. Mohapatra, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the res
