The main legal point established in this judgment is that the land had vested in the State and no valid claim was filed within the statutory period. The order of the Additional Tahasildar was without jurisdiction and the impugned order was valid.

JUDGMENT :

S. Muralidhar, J.

1. The challenge in the present petition is to an order dated 17th August, 2009 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue (BoR), Orissa, Cuttack in OEA Revision Case No.11 of 2005 whereby orders dated 2nd January, 1985 of the Assistant Consolidation Officer-cum-Additional Tahasildar, Nimapara in OEA (L) Case No.367/1984-85 were quashed and it was directed that the suit land i.e. Ac.0.75 of Sabik Plot No.3217 of Sabik Khata No.67 of Mouza-Andhia should be recorded in favour of the State of Odisha free from all encumbrances. It was further directed that the subsequent revision settlement Record of Rights (RoR) and thereafter the consolidation RoR, since published, should be corrected without any further proceeding and opening of any case record by the Tahasildar, Nimapara for bringing the land in question in the 'Anabadi Khata' of the State of Odisha.

2. It may be mentioned at the outset that while issuing notice in the present petition on 5th March 2012, status quo in respect of the property in question was asked to be maintained.

3. The ten Petitioners were Opposite Party Nos.2 to 11 in OEA Revision Case No.11 of 2005. Opposite Party No.6 i.e. Prakash Chandra Mohanty was Opposite Party No.12 before the BoR. Opposite Party No.7 i.e. Nabin Kumar Singhdeo was Opposite Party No.1 before the BoR.

4. The background facts are that the Sabik RoR of Mouza-Andhia was published in the year 1927-28. The Sabik Khata No.67 had land admeasuring Ac.13.07 in 57 plots. It was recorded in the name of Radha Prasad Bhagat, the ex-Intermediary of Kothadesi Estate and Babu Nalinikanta Mukharjee was the landlord. The land of Sabik Khata No.67 was recorded in favour of Laxmi Janardan Birasingha Mandhata on ‘Stitiban Babat Nijjot’ status.

5. One of the 57 Plots recorded in Sabik RoR of Khata No.67 was Plot No.3217 (Ac.0.75). The entire land of Sabik Khata No.67 was vested in the State of Orissa on 24th August, 1953 on abolition of the ex-Estate. Laxmi Janardan Birasingha Mandhata expired much before the date of vesting itself.

6. The claim of the Petitioners is that a rent was fixed at the rate of Rs.25 and 13 annas towards cess. It is claimed that in view of the fixation of rent and cess by the intermediary, the character of the property was that of a Stitiban private property of Laxmi Janardan Birasingha Mandhata from its inception. The absolute vesting of the above land in the State was under Sections 3 and 3(a) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (‘OEA Act’).

7. Prakash Chandra Mohanty, Opposite Party No.6 filed a petition on 27th November, 1982 under the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act (‘OGLS Act’), which was registered as Lease Case No.208 of 1982. This was objected to by Nabin Kumar Singhdeo, Opposite Party No.7 and came to be rejected by the Collector, Puri. However, in separate proceeding under the Orissa Land Reforms Act (‘OLR Act’) being OLR case No.57 of 1985 in the Court of Revenue Officer, Nimapara under Section 4(2) of the OLR Act, Opposite Party No.6 was declared as ‘raiyat’ of the land in question.

8. Meanwhile, Nabin Kumar Singhdeo, Opposite Party No.7 filed an undated claim petition in Court of the OEA Collector, Nimapara in Form-H under Rule 6 of the OEA Rules, 1952 for settling the land of Ac.0.75 in Sabik Plot No.3217 in his favour under Sections 6 and 7 of the OEA Act.

Impugned order of the BoR

9. In the impugned order, the Member BoR noted that although Opposite Party No.7 Nabin Kumar Singhdeo was to submit information in Annexures-A and B, both of Form-H, he submitted the information in Annexure-A only. Annexure-B, which was meant for giving details of the land held by the claimant ex-Intermediary within the State of Orissa was to be provided in terms of Section 5(5) of the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913 (‘OT Act’) read with Section 2(h) of the OEA Act, 1951. The land held by the ex-Intermediary and those to be settled should not exceed 33 acres. The Member, BoR inferred that Annexure-B was therefore delibe