The non-production of lease records by authorities cannot preclude rights of possession established through long-term lease agreements.

Judgment :

A.C. Behera, J.

This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing (setting aside) the final order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (Central Division), Cuttack (O.P.2) in R.P. No.137 of 2021.

2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioners for filing of the same is that, the petitioners are both wife and husband respectively. The case land is Ac0.04 decimals i.e. Hal Plot No.182 under Hal Khata No.510 in Mouza Puruna Baripada under Gopabandhu Nagar Tahasil, P.S.-Khunta in the district of Mayurbhanj, which corresponds to Sabik Plot No.107 and Sabik Khata No.401.

3. The case land measuring an area Ac0.04 decimal was leased out by the Tahasildar, Gopabandhu Nagar (O.P.4) in favour of the petitioners as per Lease Case No.127 of 2005. On the basis of the said lease in favour of the petitioners as per Lease Case No.127 of 2005, they (petitioners) are in possession over the same continuously. During the Hal settlement, the said lease hold land Ac.0.04 decimals of the petitioners was recorded erroneously in the name of the Government under Hal Khata No.510, Plot No.182, for which, the petitioners filed revision under Section 15(b) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 before the O.P.2 vide R.P. No.137 of 2021 praying for recording the case land in their names deleting the name of the Government from Hal Plot No.182 under Hal Khata No.510.

After hearing, the O.P.2 rejected the R.P. No.137 of 2021 of the petitioners as per Order dated 25.11.2022 assigning the reasons that,

“From the documents relied upon, it is noticed that, the petitioners were granted lease measuring an Area- Ac.0.04 dec with respect to Khata No.- 396/52, Plot No. 107/1778 vide Order passed in Lease case no-127/2005. The Tahasildar, Gopabandhunagar has submitted PWC, Sabik Hal Co- relation, field possession report & present status along with trace map vide his letter no.1613 dt.13.09.2022. The Tahasildar has confirmed the possession of the petitioners measuring an area of Ac.0.04 dec vide Hal Plot No.182 of Hal Khata No.510. As per the Hal Sabik Comparison given by Tahasildar, Hal Khata No.510, Hal Plot No.-182 corresponds to Sabik Khata No.401, Sabik Plot No.107. It is pertinent to mention here that, neither the Tahasildar nor the petitioners have produced records of Lease case no-127/2005. In absence of records of Lease case no.127/2005, proper adjudication as regards to entitlement of the petitioners cannot be determined.”

For which, the petitioners challenged the above Order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the O.P.2 in R.P. No.137 of 2021 by filing this writ petition praying for quashing the said Order dated 25.11.2022 passed in R.P. No.137 of 2021 on the ground that, when the Tahasildar has confirmed the possession of the petitioners over the case land on the basis of Lease Case No.127 of 2005, then only due to non-production of lease case record by the Tahasildar cannot be a ground to reject the prayer of the petitioners for recording of the case land in their names, when undisputedly, they are in possession over the same on the basis of the lease granted in their favour in Lease Case No.127 of 2005.

4. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

5. The propositions of law has already been settled by the Hon’ble Courts in the ratio of the decision between Brundaban Patnaik Vrs Commissioner, Land Record and Settlement and others reported in 2001 (1) OLR 53 that, long possession can be considered by the Tahasildar