Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
A.K. RATH, J.
Maheswar Sahu (since dead) – Appellants
Versus
State of Orissa & Others – Respondents
RSA No.300 of 2002
Decided On : 08-12-2017
OEA Act - Dispute over land settlement - Sec. 6 and 7 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, Sec. 9 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act - The court discussed the settlement of land under Sec. 6 and 7 of the OEA Act, the rejection of claim petitions, and the jurisdiction of the civil court in the dispute.
Fact of the Case:
The suit involved a dispute over the settlement of land under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act and the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act. The plaintiff claimed right, title, and interest over the land, while the defendants contested the claims based on their possession and tenancy rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State had the right, title, and interest over the suit land, and the judgments and decrees obtained by the defendants were void, inoperative, and not binding on the plaintiff. The court also held that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits filed by the defendants.
Issues: The issues included the locus standi of the plaintiff, the validity of judgments and orders passed by different courts, and the jurisdiction of the civil court in the dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State had the paramount ownership of the suit land, and the judgments obtained by the defendants were not binding due to the lack of jurisdiction of the civil court. The court also emphasized the rejection of claim petitions and the settlement of land under the OEA Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as it was found to be without merit.
JUDGMENT :
Dr. A.K. Rath, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2002 and 09.12.2002 respectively passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jagatsinghpur in Title Appeal No.112 of 1997 dismissing the appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.09.1997 and 25.10.1997 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur in Title Suit No.191 of 1995.
2. Plaintiff-respondent no.1 instituted the suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land, decree passed in Title Suit No.171 of 1991 and Title Suit No.320 of 1993 are invalid, inoperative and not binding on him, order dated 27.8.1994 passed by the Tahasildar in mutation case in favour of defendant no.1 is illegal and permanent injunction.
3. The dispute pertains to an area of Ac.0.28 dec. out of Ac.2.45 dec. appertaining to Sabik Khata No.1, Sabik Plot No.446 which corresponds to Consolidation Khata No.584, Consolidation Plot No.698.
4. Case of the plaintiff was that Sabik Plot No.446 appertaining to Sabik Khata No.1, Ac.2.45 dec. of land was recorded as ‘Nijchas land’ of ex-intermediary Rai Bahadur Bijoy Chand Mohatab of Burdhwan estate. The estate vested in the State on 27.11.1952. The ex-intermediary filed a petition under Sec. 6 and 7 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act (‘OEA Act’) before the Estate Abolition Collector for settlement of the land, which was registered as OEA Case No.10 of 1957. The petition was rejected. He filed appeal. The appellate authority remanded the case to the Estate Abolition Collector. After remand, the Estate Abolition Collector rejected the claim of the applicant. Assailing the order, he filed OEA Appeal No.34 of 1965 before the Addl. District Magistrate, Cuttack. The ADM allowed the claim of the applicant to the extent of Ac.1.67 dec. of land. Balance Ac.0.40 dec. of land was not settled in favour of him, since it was found that the land had been leased out to the Fishery Department by the ex-intermediary. The ex-intermediary filed Second Appeal No.38 of 1966 before the Member, Board of Revenue. The Member, Board of Revenue settled Ac.0.40 dec. of land in favour of ex-intermediary. Thus the entire area of Ac.2.07 dec. of land was settled in favour of ex-intermediary. While matter stood thus, the consolidation operation in the area where the land falls, started. Sabik Plot No.446 Ac.2.07 dec. was sub-divided into several plots. Consolidation Plot No.698 corresponds to Consolidation Khata No.584 (disputed plot). The land register was prepared in the name of Udaya Chand Mohatab. In the remarks column, name of Utkalmani Gopabandhu Pathagar has been noted. One Narahari Das filed an objection under Sec. 9 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act (“OCH & PFL Act”) to record his name. His claim was disallowed. Defendant no.1 manipulated the consolidation parcha and mentioned his father’s name in column no.31 by scoring through the name of Utkalmani Gopabandhu Pathagar. Final consolidation ROR was published in favour of the ex-intermediary as ‘Bebandobasta’ status. While the matter stood thus, defendant no.1 filed an application to mutate Consolidation Plot No.698 in his name on the ground that his father had obtained a patta from ex-intermediary as the same was in his possession as a lessee. The application was rejected. Thereafter, defendant no.1 instituted T.S. No.171 of 1991 for declaration of right, title and interest, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land in the court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Jagatsinghpur against ex-intermediary. The State of Orissa was not a party to the suit. The suit was decreed ex parte. The civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the bar contained in Sec.51 of the OCH & PFL Act. Thereafter, defendant no.1 filed an application for fixation of rent in his favour. The same was rejected. He filed Mutation Case No.1170 of
AI
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
