1996 Supreme(Ori) 199
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
P.K. Misra, P. Ray, JJ.
GANESH PRASAD DAS - APPELLANT
Versus
TAHASILDAR AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Original Jurisdiction Case No. 4768 of 1996
Decided On : 12-11-1996
A.K. Mishra, S.K. Mishra and M.R. Mohanty, for the Appellant; Addl. Standing Counsel, for the Respondent
Rule 34(e) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962, is to be confined to matters arising after the publication of record-of-rights and not on the basis of facts which existed prior to the preparation of the record-of-rights.
Headnote:
SURVEY AND SETTLEMENT - MAINTENANCE OF RECORD-OF-RIGHTS - CORRECTION OF RECORD-OF-RIGHTS - GROUNDS - RULE 34(E) OF THE ORISSA SURVEY AND SETTLEMENT RULES, 1962 - INTERPRETATION - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Tahasildar refusing to correct the record-of-rights in respect of certain plots on the ground that the application did not come within the purview of Rule 34(e) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Rule 34(e) of the Rules is to be confined to matters arising after the publication of record-of-rights and not on the basis of facts which existed prior to the preparation of the record-of-rights.
Issues: Whether Rule 34(e) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962, can be invoked to correct record-of-rights on the basis of facts which existed prior to the preparation of the record-of-rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Rule 34(e) of the Rules in light of the purpose of Section 16 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958, and the scheme of the provisions contained in Chapter-III and Chapter-IV of the Rules. The court held that Rule 34(e) is to be confined to matters arising after the publication of record-of-rights and not on the basis of facts which existed prior to the preparation of the record-of-rights.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Tahasildar was correct in refusing to entertain the application for correction of record-of-rights.
JUDGMENT :
P.K. Misra, J. - In this writ application, the petitioner Chalf-enges the correctness of the order dated 18-11-1895 passed by the Tahasildar, Dhamnagar, in Misc. Case No. 368/87 which had been initiated under Rule 34 (e) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962 (hereinafter called the 'Rules'). The Tahasildar refused to correct the record-of-rights in respect of plot Nos. 1944 and 1945 in M. S. Khata No. 1057 on the ground that the application strictly did not come within the purview of the Tahasildar under Rule 34 (e).
2. Rule 34 which is contained in Chapter-IV of the Rules relates to question of maintenance of record-of-rights arid map. Chapter-IV of the Rules' derive sustenance from Section 16 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). Fop convenience, Section 16 is extracted hereunder :
"16. Maintenance of record-
In order to keep the map and the record-of-rights up-to-date the same shall be maintained in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed in that behalf'"
There is no dispute that the Rules contained in Chapter-IV of the Rules are the prescribed statutory rules which have been framed to give effect to the provisions contained in Section 16 of the Act. "Records-of-Rights" are prepared in accordance with 'chapter-Ill of the Act. Under the scheme of the provisions contained in Chapter-III of the Act, record-of-rights is finally published u/s 12-B of the Act and thereafter power has been vested in the Board of Revenue to correct any record-of-rights. The record-of-rights as prepared u/s 12-B or corrected u/s 15 is, of course, subject to the decision of the Civil Court provision for which has been made u/s 42 of the Act. Section 16 only envisages maintenance of records with a view to keep the map and the records-of-rights up-to-date. By the very nature of the jurisdiction conferred u/s 16, it is self-evident that the appropriate authority is to keep the record-of-rights up-to-date by taking note of changes occurring after the finalisation of the record-of-rights. Rule 32 of the Rules envisages that the record-of-rights and the copy of the map as finally published in accordance with the provisions of the Act should be maintained and kept up-to-date in accordance with the Rules provided in Chapter-IV of the Rules. Section 16 and the provisions of Chapter-IV of the Rules come into play only when settlement operations as envisaged in Chapter-III of the Act are not in progress. This is made clear by Rule 33 which provides for abatement and suspension of proceedings under Chapter-IV of the Rules when an order is made u/s 11, 18 or 36 of the Act. Rule 34 which is important for the purpose of this base envisages the grounds on which corrections of the record- of -rights and map is to be made and is quoted hereunder :
"34. Grounds on which correction of the record-of-rights and . map is to be made-
The Tahasildar may, on application in that behalf of any person interested or on receipt of a report from any of his subordinate officers or on receipt of a notice from the Registrar or Sub-Registrar appointed under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 or from a Court or on his own motion, order any change of 'any entry in the record-of-rights according to the rules hereinafter prescribed on any one or more of the following grounds, namely :
(a) that all persons interested in any entry in the record-of-rights wish to have it changed :
(b) that by a decree in a civil suit any entry therein has been declared to be erroneous:
(c) that being founded an order of a Civil Court or on the order of any competent authority the entry therein is not in accordance with such decree or order:
(d) that such decree or order has subsequently been varied on appeal, revision or review ;
(e) that any entry therein has no relationship with the existing facts ; and
(f) that by preparation of a survey record under Chapter-ll of the Act any change is necessitated in the record-of-rights."
The provisions contained in R