Back
2007 Supreme(Ori) 902
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Sanju Panda, I.M. Quddusi, JJ.
SMT. SUDHA KAUR - APPELLANT
Versus
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Writ Petition (C) No. 9975 of 2006
Decided On : 20-12-2007
Bharat Kumar Mishra, for the Appellant; Additional Government, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that administrative instructions, which have no statutory force, do not give rise to any legal right and cannot be enforced in a court of law against the administration.
Headnote:
Circular - Land Dispute - Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958, Indian Registration Act - Summary: The court discussed the validity of a circular issued by the State Government regarding Bebandobasta lands and their settlement. The circular clarified the procedure for settlement of rent for lands under Bebandobasta status. The court held that the circular was procedural in nature and did not violate any statutory rule. It concluded that the writ petitions challenging the circular were devoid of merit.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged a circular issued by the State Government regarding Bebandobasta lands and their settlement. They argued that the circular was illegal and arbitrary, and invoked the jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the circular was procedural in nature and did not violate any statutory rule. It held that the writ petitions challenging the circular were devoid of merit and dismissed them.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the circular issued by the State Government regarding Bebandobasta lands and their settlement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the circular was procedural in character and did not violate any statutory rule. It also emphasized that the record-of-rights does not confer any title, and an order disallowing correction of the record-of-rights does not take away title, if there be any.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the circular, as it found them to be devoid of merit.
JUDGMENT :
1. Since common questions are involved in all these writ petitions, on consent of the parties, they were heard analogously and this common judgment is passed, which shall govern the three writ petitions.
2. Facts:
W.P.(C) No. 9975 of 2006:
Petitioner along with two other persons, namely, Snehalata Sharma and Pawan Kumar Shivhare jointly purchased a piece of land in the year 2005 including the building from the vendors who had purchased the said land in the year 1985 and whose names find place in the R.O.R. with Bebandobasta status. The names are Daljeet Singh, Manjeet Singh and Jagjeet Singh, S/o. Kesari Singh. The details of the said land are given below:
Unit No. Khata No. Plot No. Kissam Area
43 386 475/P Basagruha Ac.0.30 decimals
District: Sundargarh, (Rourkela)
W.P.(C) No. 5134 of 2007;
The Petitioner purchased a piece of land in the year 2000 measuring an area of 1061 sq. ft. out of Ac.0.170 decimals of plot No. 480 under khata No. 379 from one Sri Vishnu Kumar Agarwal vide sale deed No. 615 dated 11.10.2000. Said Vishnu Kumar Agarwal had purchased the said land from one Sri Charan Das Babuta, transferer, under the valid registered sale deed No. 1085 dated 17.9.1993. The land in question is Bebandobasta in status and the schedule of the said land is given below:
LAND SCHEDULE
District-Sundargarh, Village-Rourkela Town,
Unit No. 43, Khata No. 379, Plot No. 480(P) area
34', 10" X 31", 8" = 1061 sq.ft. Total Ac.0.215 dec. Kisam Gharabari
W.P.(C) No. 5135 of 2007:
Petitioner purchased a piece of land in the year 2005 measuring an area of Ac.0.5 decimals from one Sri Anand Padia S/o. Sawarmal Padia vide registered sale deed No. 2324 dated 26.7.2005 and said Anand Padia had purchased the said land from one Smt. Subasi Saha wife of Siblal Saha vide registered sale deed No. 1903 dated 17.11.1994 whose name finds place in the R.O.R. and the status of the land is Bebandobasta. The details of the said land are given below:
Unit No. Khata No. Plot No. Kissam Area
43 420 908/1064 Gharabari Ac.0.05 dec.
District: Sundargarh, village-Rourkela town.
3. In all these writ petitions challenge has been made to the Government Circular No. EA-II-16/2000/57677/R., dated 6th December, 2000 issued by the Government of Orissa, Revenue Department as illegal and arbitrary and the same is not in accordance with the statute and rules. Thus, the Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. The case of the Petitioners are that after purchasing the said lands, they along with their family members were residing in the said land by constructing dwelling houses and they filed applications before the Tahasildar for correction of the record-of-rights. The Tahasildar rejected their applications on the ground that the State Government has issued a circular wherein it is stated that the Tahasildar shall correct the record-of-rights in the name of the persons who is a pre-1983 transferee or the successor-in-interest of the Bebandobasta land and the Government is planning to bring back the land to the Government Khata as per the Circular dated 6th December, 2000.
5. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the said Circular are quoted below:
...Thus, transferees of such land transferred by such service tender holders or their successors-in-interest through valid registered sale deed prior to 25.8.1983 should be recognized except in case of transfers in favour of family deities and transfers in respect of any Trust Estate land. R.O. Rs have presumptive value of evidence u/s 13(3) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958. Since in the R.O. Rs the land is recorded in bebandobasta status, the Tahasildar is bound by law to presume that the land in question is vested with Government and the persons whose names appear therein or their ancestors were possessing the land on the date of vesting and on the date of final publication of the R.O. Rs. He cannot go against the entries made in the R.O. Rs un
