The court ruled that eviction based solely on recorded rights without sufficient evidence to rebut ownership claims is unjustified, emphasizing the burden of proof lies on the claimant.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 26^th July, 2014 passed in connection with Revenue Appeal No.44 of 2010 under Annexure-12 by learned Additional District Magistrate, Sundargarh confirming the order 4th December, 2010 (Annexure-11) in RMC No.36 of 2010 of learned OSD (LR), Panposh on the grounds inter alia that the same is illegal, perverse and suffers from non-application of judicial mind, hence, liable to be quashed.

2. Briefly stated, the disputed property is in respect of Plot Nos.191/2 and 192 which was originally belonged to one Mangal Bhumija and Mansingh Bhumija, who are Schedule Tribes and as such, recorded in their names in CS RoR (Annexure-1) under rayati status. In respect of Plot No.191/1 measuring an area of Ac.0.34 decimal, one of the recorded tenants executed a sale deed on 4th April, 1955 and alienated the same in favour of late Hazara Singh, namely, father of the petitioner and such transaction was effected before the onset of the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (By Scheduled Tribes) Regulation, 1956 (shortly called as ‘the Regulation’). It is pleaded that after the Regulation came into force, Revenue Misc. Case No.1 of 1975 was registered against the father of the petitioner for his eviction from the land purchased by him as it belonged to a Schedule Tribe, however, the proceeding was dropped by order dated 29^th May, 1975 and 30^th May, 1975 (Annexure-2) with a conclusion therein that as after the purchase, he had been declared as a raiyat under the OLR Act and for the transaction having taken place prior to the commencement of the Regulation. As per the petitioner, CS Plot Nos.191 and 192 situate adjacent to each other and his late father was declared as a raiyat in respect of Plot Nos.191/2 and 191/3 and 191/4 under Khata No.36/1 in OLR Case No.11 of 1974 consisting of area Ac.0.60 decimal out of which Plot No.191/3 measures Ac.0.31 decimal and refers to the RoR issued to him at Annexure3. It is claimed that the father of the petitioner after having acquired title over Khata No.36/1 and while continuing possession over Plot Nos.191/1, 191/2, 191/3 and 191/4, sold Ac.0.24 decimal out of Plot No.191/3 to one Santosh Kumar Agrawal keeping Ac.0.07 decimal with him. While matter stood thus, as further pleaded, the father of opposite party No.1 purchased Ac.0.70 decimal out of CS Plot No.192 of area of Ac.1.30 decimal corresponding to CS Khata No.67 from the recorded owner, namely, Mangal Bhumija by way of a sale deed dated 22^nd December, 1978 (Annexure-4) and after such deed was executed, since the other shareholder was not a signatory to it, a deed of relinquishment dated 3^rd August, 1979 came into being confirming such sale in respect of Ac.0.70 decimal from Plot No.192 and the petitioner refers to the said deed at Annexure-5. It is also pleaded that the late father of opposite party No.1, after having acquired interest over Ac.0.70 decimal, sold the entire land on different dates obtaining permission from the competent authority and it was between 23^rd January, 1979 and 5^th March, 1986 and the petitioner refers to a copy of the EC obtained from the Sub-Registrar, Panposh dated 9th September, 2010 i.e. Annexure-6 and one such transactions was in favour of the petitioner measuring an Ac.0.10 decimal by a sale deed dated 5^th March, 1986 (Annexure-7) and after the aforesaid purchase, it was mutated in his favour vide Mutation Case No.437 of 1995 upon receiving the RI’s report at Annexure-8 series and followed by order dated 15^th December, 1995 (Annexure-9) and later to the m