Back
1995 Supreme(Ori) 378
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
D.M. Patnaik, A. Pasayat, JJ.
TRILOCHAN SINGH AND ANOTHER - APPELLANT
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF LAND RECORDS AND SETTLEMENT AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
O.J.C. No. 4043 of 1992
Decided On : 07-02-1995
Important Points
Subject
Land Law - Settlement of Land Disputes
Headnote
SURVEY AND SETTLEMENT - JURISDICTION - ORDER PASSED UNDER ESTATES ACT - CANNOT BE IGNORED BY AUTHORITIES UNDER SURVEY AND SETTLEMENT ACT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners were in possession of land belonging to the deity (opp. party No. 3). The land was vested in the State under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951. Petitioners filed a Maufi Case under the Act and were settled with the land. Opp. party No. 3 filed an O.L.R. Misc. Case claiming privileged raiyat status over the land, which was allowed. Petitioners challenged the order in the Orissa High Court, which held that the raiyats were not bound by the order as they were not parties to the O.L.R. Misc. Case. Opp. party No. 3 filed a Rent Appeal against the order of the Settlement Officer, which was allowed by the appellate and revisional authorities on the ground that the orders of the settlement authorities were without jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The Orissa High Court held that the authorities acting under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1952 cannot ignore an order passed under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 on the basis that the order passed under the Estates Act was without jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether authorities under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1952 can ignore an order passed under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 on the basis that the order passed under the Estates Act was without jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: An order of settlement has at least a de facto operation unless and until it is declared to be void or nullity by a competent body or Court. The original order of settlement was passed by an authority who had jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The question whether settlement was in order has no relation with jurisdiction of the authority who has jurisdiction passes an order which is improper or illegal, the same cannot be treated as void. It remains enforceable until it is set at naught in an appropriate proceeding by an appropriate authority.
Final Decision: The Orissa High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders of the appellate and revisional authorities. The revisional authority was directed to consider the case of the petitioners on its own merits afresh.
S. Misra 2, S.K. Misra and R.C. Rath, for the Appellant; Bibhudendra Das, A.S.C. (for Opp. parties 1 and 2), for the Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A. Pasayat, J. - Short point that arises for consideration in this case is whether authorities under Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1952 ('in short, the, Act') can ignore an order passed under the Orissa Estates Abolilion Act, 1951 (in short, 'Estates Act') on the basis that order passed under Estates Act was without jurisdiction.
2. The aforesaid question has come up for adjudication on the following background as portrayed by petitioners.
A.20.39 decimals of land belonging to the opp. party No. 3 deity was in forcible possession of petitioner No. 1's father, and thereafter by petitioner No. 1 himself. The said land was a part of a total area of A.207.21 decimals in Khata No. 14 of village Kamatharia. There was note of, such forcible possession in the record-of-rights of 1955. Several others were also recorded to be in such possession in respect of other lands. Vesting notification of Debettor Maufi interest u/s 3A of the Estates Act was promulgated on 29-9-1965. MJC No. 110 of 1966 u/s 13-C of the Estates Act was filed by opp. party No. 3 claiming that the entire khata land and other khata lands were part of its trust estate. Objections were filed on 18-6-1986 by father of petitioner No. 1, and others. Said MJC No. 110 of 1986 was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge-cum-O.L.R. Tribunal on 30-8-1968. Maufi Case No. 13 of 1969 was filed by petitioner No. 1's father u/s 7 read with Section 8-A and 13 plots were settled by order dated 30-6-1963. In Maufi Case No. 9 of 1972, one plot left out by mistake was also settied on lease principle by payment of salami and bank rent by the Tahasildar, acting as Collector under the Estates Act by order dated 31-3-1972. New Khata No. 169/33 from Sabak Khata No. 24 was prepared in the name of petitioner No. 1's father for A 20. 39 decimals of lands. Rent3 were paid at different points of time by petitioner No. 1's father and petitioner No. 1. In O.L.R. Misc. case No. 23 of 1976, by order dated 12-1-1977 opp. party No. 3 was declared as privileged raiyat of petitioners' settled raiyati land and other similar land of 57 raiyats. By judgment dated 4-7-1987 in OJC No. 1576 of 1978 filed by all the 58 raiyats, against the O.L.R. Tribunal, Collector, Kalahandi, Commissioner of Endowments and several deities including opp. party No. 3, it was held that as the raiyats were neither parties nor heard in the O.L.R Misc.Case No. 23 of 1976, they were not bound by judgment dated 12-1-1977. By order dated 15-5-1989 14 Rent objection cases filed by opp. party No. 3 against petitioner No. 1 and other raiyats, were dismissed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, on the finding that the Settlement authorities are bound by orders in vesting cases. The opp. party No. 3 filed one appeal which was numbered as Rent Appeal No. 17 of 1990 against order passed in Rent Objection Case No. 5277 of 1986, relating to petitioner No. 1. By judgment dated 6:2-1992 it was allowed by the appellate authority with the finding that orders of the settlement authorities were without jurisdiction. The said order was confirmed by the revisional authority by order dated 28-4-1992. (Annexure-11), which is subject-matter of challenge in this writ application.
3. Mr. S. Misra (2), learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that the authorities acting under the Act have no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over any conclusion or order passed by a competent authority under another statute i.e. Estates Act. . It is submitted if orders were irregular or illegal as claimed, the same could have been assailed before a higher forum provided under the Estates Act. That having not been done, it was not open to the settlement authorities to treat the orders without jurisdiction and to ignore them. In spite of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of opp. party No. 3, though Mr. Padmanava Panda has filed vakalatnama on his behalf, when the matter was taken up. According to learned counsel for State, the order being without j
