Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.R.SARANGI, MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Bipin Bihari Hazira – Appellant
Versus
Tahasildar, Chandabali – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of land possession (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding claims to khasmahal land (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's review of evidence and authority actions (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. failure to exercise statutory power by tahasildar (Para 8) |
| 5. conclusion and order to remand case (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner, by way of this writ petition, seeks to quash the order dated 03.03.2017 passed in Khashmahal Case No. 01 of 2016 under Annexure-4, by which the Tahasildar, Chandabali has dropped the said case by recording that as the case land has been transferred to A.J.A. (Abad Jogya Anabadi) Khata for inability of parties to produce relevant document, it cannot be settled.
3. Mr. S.S.K. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has a right to claim the benefit as the land in question, i.e., sabik plot no. 589 measuring an area of Ac. 0.13 decimal, plot no. 590 measuring an area of Ac. 0.2 decimal, plot no. 591 measuring an area of Ac. 0.2 dec., i.e., in total Ac. 0.17 dec. under sabik khata no. 40 of Mouza Chandabali in the district of Bhadrak, is a Khasmahal land and it was leased out by the Tahasildar in the name of Khetrabasi S
The Tahasildar failed to follow proper procedures under the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act for settling Khasmahal land, necessitating a remand for reconsideration.
Khasmahal leases confer permanent rights to lessees, including renewal and transferability, and recording of leased land in government khata is impermissible if prior rights exist.
The court upheld that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should not be disturbed unless proven perverse, reinforcing the principle that claims related to property must be initiated within th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Collector's duty is to act in conformity with the provisions of law and that the possession of the land for more than five years satisfies....
Settlement authorities cannot alter confirmed land assignments without legal basis, emphasizing the need to respect prior land grants and judicial confirmations.
The court confirmed that established land settlements must be respected and that authorities cannot alter classifications of land previously settled without valid justification under law.
Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to determine land title disputes, which must be settled in civil courts, rendering related appeals maintainable under proper legal challenges.
Settlement authorities cannot override confirmed property rights without lawful authority; Judicial review ensures adherence to due process in land ownership disputes.
The non-production of lease records by authorities cannot preclude rights of possession established through long-term lease agreements.
Delay in filing a writ petition affects its maintainability; mere possession does not create enforceable rights against state claim over khas land.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
