Civil courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate title disputes over land; revenue authorities cannot evict occupants under disputed ownership.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in the above-mentioned Writ Petitions, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, this Court finds it appropriate to treat W.P. (C) No. 5239 of 2018as the leadcase for the proper adjudication of these matters.

2. The Petitioner, in W.P. (C) No. 5239 of 2018 challenges the eviction order passed by the Tahasildar, Dhamnagar in O.P.L.E. Case No. 9/16, the appellate order passed by the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak in O.P.L.E. Appeal No.154/16, and the revisional order passed by the Collector, Bhadrak in O.P.L.E. Revision No.9/17.

3. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5240 of 2018 challenges the eviction order passed by the Tahasildar, Dhamnagar in O.P.L.E. Case No.10/16, the appellate order passed by the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak in O.P.L.E. Appeal No.155/16, and the revisional order passed by the Collector, Bhadrak in O.P.L.E. Revision No.10/17.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

4. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The suit land, M.S. Plot No. 847 measuring Ac. 0.23 dec under Khata No. 815, corresponding to C.S. Plot No. 625 measuring Ac. 0.23 dec under Khata No. 242 of Mouza Dakshinbad, District Bhadrak, was originally recorded in the name of the ex-intermediary, Md. Moulabi Jafar Hossain.

(ii) The ex-intermediary had issued a Hatapatta in favour of the Petitioner’s father, who was paying rent to him.

(iii) After the abolition of the estate, the ex-intermediary submitted an Ekpadia in favour of the Petitioner’s father, in whose name the T.L. was opened. The Petitioner’s father thereafter paid rent to the Government. Upon his death, the Petitioner came into possession of the suit land.

(iv) During the Hal Settlement operation, the suit plot was recorded in the name of the Government under the ‘Abadajogya Anabadi’ Khata.

(v) Subsequently, the Tahasildar initiated encroachment proceedings against the Petitioner in O.P.L.E. Case No. 9/16.

(vi) Upon becoming aware of the encroachment case, the Petitioner filed a suit for declaration of right, title, interest, and possession before the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Dhamnagar, vide C.S. No. 16/17. Simultaneously, the Petitioner contested the encroachment proceedings on the ground that the same were not maintainable in view of the pending civil suit.

(vii) On 17.11.2016, the Tahasildar issued an eviction notice to the Petitioner, directing him to vacate the suit plot within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice.

(viii) The Petitioner preferred an appeal bearing O.P.L.E. Appeal No.154/16 before the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak, which was dismissed on 13.06.2017.

(ix) Against the appellate order, the Petitioner preferred a revision petition bearing O.P.L.E. Revision Case No. 9/17 before the Collector, Bhadrak, which was dismissed by order dated 09.02.2018.

(x) Aggrieved by the aforementioned orders, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate relief.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The Petitioner contended that it is a settled principle of law that questions relating to the title of either party can only be adjudicated by the Civil Court and not in summary proceedings under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 .

(ii) The Petitioner submitted that the R.O.R. does not confer any right, title, or interest. He claimed title over the suit land on the basis of a Hatapatta and T.L., and therefore, the authorities under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 erred in law by treating the disputed land as Government land solely on the basis of the Hal R.O.R., which is incorrect and illegal.

(iii) The Petitioner further submitted that it is immaterial whether the encroachment case was initiated prior to or after the filing of the civil suit. It is a settled principle of law that where there is a dispute