Tenancy claims under the OEA Act require credible evidence of continuous cultivation prior to property vesting, with delays undermining credibility and claims on unregistered leases being inadmissible.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. Pattanaik, J.

1. Invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article(s) 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, the Petitioners have knocked the portals of this Court assailing the impugned order dated 29^th July, 1995 (Annexure-11) passed in O.E.A. Revision Case No.16 of 1994 by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack, namely, OP No.5 for having confirmed order dated 23^rd November, 1983 (Annexure-4) passed by the OEA Collector- cum-Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, namely, OP No.4 in OEA No.66 of 1993 rejecting their predecessor’s claim for acceptance of rent as a tenant under the State Government on the ground that the decision is per se illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction.

2. The subject matter of the property is situate over Plot No.258, Khata No.472 corresponding to Sabik Plot No.218 and Khata No.303/21 measuring an area of Ac.5.00 decimals situated in Mouza-Chandrasekharpur in the district of Khurda.

3. The case of the Petitioners in brief is that the schedule property originally belonged to the Kanika State and its ex-Zamindar granted permanent lease in favour of the original tenant on 21^st March 1944 and delivered possession to him, who, thereafter, reclaimed and cultivated it. Then, on estate abolition, the subject of Kanika State vested in the Government on 27^th December 1952 and at that time, the ex-intermediary submitted an ekpadia recognizing the tenancy in respect of Khata No.302/21 to the office of the Tahasildar, Cuttack which entered the same in the tenant’s ledger thereby accepting him as a tenant under the Government. According to the Petitioners, in view of Section 8 (1) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (here-in-after referred to as ‘the OEA Act’), the original tenant had become a tenant under the State Government but the Tahasildar, Cuttack on being moved declined to accept rent from him which led to the filing of OEA Case No.66 of 1983 before OP No.4 for fixation of rent in respect of the case land but it was rejected on the ground of absence jurisdiction to settle it in his favour since the property had by then been owned by G.A. Department, Government of Orissa. The original tenant after the disposal of OEA Case No.66 of 1983 approached the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar by filing Mutation Case No.242 of 1991 in respect of the case land as a tenant but again it was rejected and thereafter, Mutation Appeal No.15 of 1992 was filed which also yielded no result. Finally, the original tenant moved OP No.5 challenging the order passed in OEA Case No.66 of 1983 which was though entertained despite delay but was dismissed on the grounds, such as, lease deed not to be admissible for being a non-registered document and that apart, the lease could not be proved and also possession over the property in absence of any note of remark in the settlement record and also due to want of evidence to show cultivation of the land immediately before the date of vesting. As per the Petitioners, when the original tenant produced materials in support of lease and acceptance of tenancy by the State Government after ekpadia was submitted by the ex-intermediary, the impugned decision of OP No.5 concurring the findings of OP No.4 dismissing such claim cannot be sustained.

4. Heard Mr. S.S. Das, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners, Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned AGA for OP Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5 and Mr. S. Palit, learned Senior Advocate for OP No.3.

5. On the contrary, it is contended that OP No.5 did not commit any error or illegality and rightly held that the lease in favour of the original tenant could not be established nor the possessio