The principle of res judicata prevents re-litigation of previously settled land ownership disputes, especially against procedural lapses, reaffirming established ownership under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act despite subsequent state claims.

JUDGMENT :

BISWANATH RATH, J.

1. The writ petition involves the following prayer :-

Under the facts and circumstances stated above, this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit this writ application and issue a ‘Rule-Nisi’ calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why the impugned order dated 13.05.2013 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack (Annexure-9) and the impugned order dated 01.06.2013 passed by the Additional Sub-collector-cum-Additional Settlement Officer, Puri in OSS Case No.394 of 2012 (Annexure-10) shall not be quashed and thereafter as to why the Opposite Parties shall not be directed to record the suit land in favour of the petitioner;

AND

If the Opposite partiers or any of them fail to show cause or shows insufficient cause make the said rule absolute

AND

Pass such other order/orders and/or writ/writs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper’

And for this act of your kindness, the petitioner shall ever pray.”

2. Background involving the case is that a piece of land in Mouza- Khalakata, Tahasil-Gop in the district of Puri in not final Khata No.263/Ka in not final Plot No.1203/1545 measuring an area of Ac.20,00 acres corresponding to part of Sabik Plot No.916(P), Sabik Khata No.102/186, Area Ac.21.76 decimals is the suit land. As per the Sabik record of right of 1927-28 settlement corresponds to part of sabik Plot No.916 with full area of Ac.230.92 decimals stood in Anabadi khata in the name of the ex-intermediary Sadhu Charan Chand under Touzi No.526. The said ex-intermediary Sadhu Charan Chand in the year 1934 relinquished his right, title and interest over Plot No.916 through registered “Nadabi Patra” vide Deed No.532 dated 19.02.1934 to Dhaneswar Routray and six others, who became the intermediaries in respect of the said land. Out of them, four co-intermediaries relinquished/transferred their right and title over their portion out of said land through R.S.D. No.1316 dated 30.04.1935, R.S.D. No.1202 dated 16.04.1937 and R.S.D. No.1678 dated 22.05.1934 respectively to Dhaneswar Routray and others. Dependent on above sale transactions, the land in question was mutated in favour of said new intermediaries, who all continued in khas possession of the aforesaid land. While the matter stood thus, on his request, Upendra Paikray inducted himself as a tenant in respect of the suit land whereby tenancy right was created under an unregistered permanent lease deed (Hat Patta) dated 16.04.1939 and the said permanent lease deed was duly executed by the ex-intermediaries in respect of an area of Ac.21.76 decimals under Sabik Plot No.916 (Part) in Sabik Khata No.102 in favour of Upendra Paikray for agriculture purposes. It is while the matter stood thus, Upendra Paikray re-claimed the suit land, cultivated the same, continued in cultivating possession thereof and used to pay rent to the ex-intermediaries till the date of vesting of the intermediary interest in the State in the year 1953, as claimed became directly a tenant under the deeming provision under Section 8 (1) of the O.E.A. Act. It is averred that prior to the date of vesting and on the date of vesting, the lessee Upendra Paikray was in possession of the suit land as a tenant thereby remaining in cultivating possession as a tenant for more than the statutory period of 12 years commencing from 16.04.1939 and became an occupancy rayat in resp