Back
2002 Supreme(Ori) 451
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
L. Mohapatra, J.
BIBHUTI BHUSAN MISRA - APPELLANT
Versus
RAGHABA JENA AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Second Appeal No. 173 of 1985
Decided On : 13-12-2002
N.C. Pati, B.N. Mishra and A.K. Mishra, for the Appellant; S.N. Sinha and Sujata Dash, for the Respondent
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Orissa Land Reforms Act and Orissa Tenancy Act in determining occupancy rights in a property dispute.
Headnote:
Stitiban Status - Property Dispute - Orissa Land Reforms Act, Section 67; Orissa Tenancy Act, Section 23, 24 - The court discussed the claim of stitiban status in a property dispute and the applicability of Orissa Land Reforms Act and Orissa Tenancy Act. The court analyzed the evidence of possession, payment of rent, and the legal provisions to determine the occupancy rights of the parties involved. The interpretation of Section 67 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act and Section 23 of the Orissa Tenancy Act influenced the court's decision in reaching the final judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit claiming stitiban status in a disputed property, alleging that their ancestors had possession and were paying rent. The defendant denied the claim, stating that the property was in their possession and the suit was filed to harass them.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiffs had not acquired occupancy rights. The appellate court allowed the appeal, recognizing the plaintiffs' possession and granting them occupancy rights.
Issues: The substantial questions of law included the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, the claim for declaration of occupancy rights, and the finding of the lower appellate court regarding the plaintiffs' possession as bhag tenants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the evidence of possession, payment of rent, and the legal provisions under the Orissa Land Reforms Act and Orissa Tenancy Act to determine the occupancy rights of the plaintiffs. It found that the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act did not apply to the case and that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently proved their possession to claim occupancy rights.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the lower appellate court and confirming the trial court's decision.
JUDGMENT :
L. Mohapatra, J. - Defendant No. 5 is the appellant before this Court against a reversing judgment.
Plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for declaration that they have stitiban status in respect of 'Ka' schedule land and that the defendants have no manner of right, title and interest therein.
2. Case of the plaintiff-respondents is that the suit property originally belonged to the family of late Kalu Charan Mishra and others. In the family partition of late Kalu Charan Mishra the suit properties fell to the share of Kalu Charan Mishra and he granted a permanent lease in respect of Ac. 1.60 decimals of land out of total properties which fell to his share appertaining to plot No. 108, Khata No. 13/'Ka' in mouza Krushna Chandrapur in favour of the ancestors of the plaintiffs. The ancestors of the plaintiffs remained possession of the same on the basis of such permanent lease and were paying rent to Kalu Charan Mishra. It is alleged in the plaint that Kalu Charan Mishra had agreed that the properties in dispute would be recorded in the names of ancestors of the plaintiffs as having stitiban status. Settlement operation started sometime in the year 1962 and father of the plaintiff-respondents took steps for settlement of land in their favour in respect of Ac. 1.50 decimals of land but before final publication of ROR the father of the plaintiffs died. After final publication of the ROR the plaintiffs came to know on 25.3.81 that the land was not recorded in the name of the father of the plaintiff but same has been recorded in the names of father and grand-father of defendants 1 to 4. The suit was therefore, filed for the relief claimed.
Defendant No. 5 filed his written statement stating that his father had never granted permanent lease in favour of the ancestors of the plaintiffs in respect of Ac. 1.60 decimals of land appertaining to plot No. 108 as claimed and grand-father and father of the plaintiffs never possessed the said land and were never paying rent to the father of the said defendants. Other plaint allegations were also denied. It is also specifically pleaded by the defendant No. 5 that his father was in physical possession of the suit land and after his death he was in possession of the same, His further case is that the suit land has been wrongly recorded in the settlement in the names of co-sharers of late Kalu Charan Mishra. It is also stated in the written statement that the plaintiffs approached the defendant No. 5 to purchase the land and since the defendant did not accept the proposal the suit was filed to harass him.
3. On the basis of pleadings of the parties the learned Additional Munsif, Puri framed seven issues and dismissed the suit on the following findings.
(i) Plaintiffs have not acquired occupancy right over the suit land.
(ii) The plaintiffs or their ancestors had never got the disputed property by way of permanent lease from the father of defendant No. 5.
(iii) Plaintiffs have got no right, title and interest over the suit land.
4. Appeal preferred by the plaintiffs before the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Puri was allowed on the following findings :
(i) Rent receipts filed on behalf of the plaintiffs strengthen their case and support the fact of their possession over the suit land for a long period continuously.
(ii) Claim of the plaintiffs with regard to possession and induction having been accepted, they have occupancy right over the suit land.
5. At the time of admission of the second appeal this Court formulated the following substantial questions of law for adjudication.
(1) Whether, in view of Section 67 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the case ?
(2) Whether, even assuming that the plaintiffs and their predecessors in interest were bhag tenants, their claim for declaration of occupancy right could be granted in the absence of any proof and finding to the effect that they had acquired occupancy right in accordance with Section 23 and 24 of the Oriss
