IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S. MURALIDHAR, B.P. ROUTRAY, JJ.
State of Orissa & Others - Petitioners
Versus
Manta Krishna Sethi & Others - Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 3687 of 2002, F.A. Nos. 88, 89, 96, 98, 103, 121, 124 of 2002 and CMP Nos. 224 & 225 of 2020
Decided On : 27-10-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 162 - Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951 - Section 22 Section 2(n) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4 (1) - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 54 & 55 - Using forged signature or counterfeit seal or stamp - Present case concerns acquisition of land measuring decimals in numbers of different blocks under which was a land of (intermediaries) and other - Rent for lands were purportedly paid by to three (intermediary excluding the fourth - It is claimed by Opposite Parties in writ petition/ Respondents in appeals, that said land were not within territorial jurisdiction of At in instrument of not been included - Whether execution cases should not proceed in accordance with law.
Finding of the Court: The fact that vesting of the entire land in the State took place way back 1963 gives a completely different complexion to the entire proceedings. Once it is clear that all the further proceedings are null and void, the further order passed in November, 2001 by the Civil Court on remand by this Court also cannot be sustained in law. All sales of lands in question subsequent to Notification, Land Acquisition Awards and corresponding orders in reference under Section 18 LA Act are declared null and void, and all Execution Proceedings arising there from are hereby declared closed. - On strength of judgment, concerned Courts will pass corresponding orders accordingly - Court or in Executing Court be returned forthwith by Registry to State together with interest which may have accrued thereon.
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
S. Muralidhar, J.
1. Writ Petition (Civil) No.3687 of 2002 and the connected First Appeals and CMPs arise out of the common set of facts and accordingly they are disposed of by this common judgment.
Background Facts
2. The present case concerns acquisition of land measuring Ac.288.89 decimals in mouza Bidyadharpur in 12 numbers of different blocks under Khewat Part 3(1), which was a ‘Nijadakhal’ land of Raja Radhanath Bebarta Pattnaik under the Beheldars (intermediaries) Radhakrishna Bharati and others. The rent for the lands were purportedly paid by Raja Radhanath Bebarta Pattanaik to the three Beheldars (intermediary/ zamindars) excluding the fourth Beheldar Sri Chintamani Behera.
3. It is claimed by the Opposite Parties in the writ petition/ Respondents in the appeals, that the said land were not within the territorial jurisdiction of Athagarh Estate. It is claimed that in the instrument of merger of Athagarh Estate, the lands have not been included.
4. Due to non-payment of rents, the Beheldars Chintamani Behera and Bhagaban Das filed Rent Suit No.80 of 1958-59 in the Revenue Court against Raja Radhanath Bebarta Pattnaik for realization of rent for the years 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58. The said suit was decreed on 20th January, 1959.
5. After the death of Chintamani Behera, his sons Jayaram Behera and Bhagaban Das filed Execution Case No.680 of 1958-59 against Raja Radhanath Bebarta Pattnaik for realization of rent as per the decree in their favour. In the said Execution Proceedings the aforementioned land to the extent of Ac.288.89 decimals was put to sale by public auction.
6. One Sri Baishnaba Charan Sethi of Deulasahi of Cuttack Town emerged as the highest bidder in that public auction held on 15th October, 1960 and purchased the aforementioned extent of Ac.288.89 decimals. The sale was confirmed in his favour after the statutory period. A Sale Certificate was issued in his favour on 11th April, 1961 under Order 21, Rule 94, C.P.C. On application of the auction purchaser, the Executing Court passed an order for delivery of possession under Order 31, Rule 95, C.P.C.
7. In terms of the order of the executing court, the process-server of the court delivered possession of the aforementioned land in favour of Baishnaba Charan Sethi on 17th May, 1961 in presence of the witnesses, affixing the certificate of sale of the said land and proclaiming it by drum beat that the right, title, interest and possession of the aforementioned land of Ac.288.89 decimals was transferred to the auction purchaser Sri Baishnaba Charan Sethi. A report to that effect was submitted to the executing court.
8. Thereupon Baishnaba Charan Sethi cultivated the lands and paid rents to the Tahsildar, Sadar, Cuttack with effect from 1960-61. The first payment was made in November, 1962 for the year 1960-61, 1961-62, and he kept paying rents thereafter till 1970.
9. It is stated that the property sold in the auction sale was Nijadakhal land (own possession) of Raja Radhanath Bebarta Pattnaik situated in the CDA and was not within the territorial jurisdiction of Athagarh.
10. Under the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951 (OEA Act), the land in question stood vested with the Government of Odisha on 27th April, 1963 vide Notification No.27478-EA1-T/63-R, “free from all encumbrances”. All the intermediary interests were also vested with the State. It was the State who then became the owner of the lands. No application for assessing rents thereafter was filed by Sri Baishnaba Charan Sethi, the auction purchaser.
11. It appears that, on 4th April, 1970 said Baishnaba Charan Sethi applied for permission to sell a portion of the land measuring Ac.185.00 decs. for his own interest. On 31st May, 1971 permission was granted by the then Sub-Divisional Officer, Cuttack Sadar under Section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (OLR Act) permitting Sri Sethi to sell land of the extent of Ac.185.00 decs.
12. It appears that a local enquiry was conducted, and in the course of set
Kumar Bimal Chandra Sinha vs. State of Orissa
Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar & Ors. vs. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund & Ors.
Sri Madan Mohan Das Babaji v. Brundaban Pal
State of Orissa v. Nityananda Satpathy
State of Orissa v. Harapriya Bisoi
Special Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer v. M.S. Seshagiri Rao
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Star Bone Mill and Fertiliser Company
Dr. H.S. Rikhy v. The New Delhi Municipal Committee
Bengal Iron Corporation v. Commercial Tax Officer and Others
I.T.C. Bhadrachalam Paperboards v. Mandal Revenue Officer, A.P.
State of Orissa v. Purushottam Barik
Radhamani Dibya v. Braja Mohan Biswal
Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig
Collector of Bombay v. Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistri, (1955) I SCR 1311
Special Land Acquisition & Rehabilitation Officer v. M.S. Seshagiri Rao and Another
Ram Narain Singh v. State of Bihar
Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal
Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K.C. Alexander & Ors.
Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt. of A.P. v. Collector & Ors.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.