The court upheld the correction of land records based on historical deeds, affirming the inapplicability of joint possession claims without requisite evidence in civil matters.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 31.05.2022 passed by the Commissioner, Land Reforms-cum-Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack in Revision Case No. 138 of 2021 as well as the order dated 12.01.2023 passed in Misc. Case No. 54 of 2022, whereby the Tahasildar, Raghunathpur has been directed to correct the ROR on the basis of the Gift Deed dated 10.06.1967 and Sale Deed dated 21.07.1952.

2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that land measuring Ac.0.51 dec. under Sabik Khata No. 20, comprising Sabik Plot Nos. 353, 356 and 354 of village Pateligaon was recorded in the names of the ancestors of the parties under the Sabik ROR published in 1930. The land was ancestral and jointly held by two branches of the family, each having half share. During the lifetime of the recorded tenants, a portion of the land was transferred by Sale Deed dated 21.07.1952 in favour of Madan Swain and thereafter, Kahnei Swain executed a Gift Deed dated 10.06.1967 in favour of Madan Swain and Amarendra Swain in respect of his share. Subsequently, Ac.0.13 dec. of land was acquired for canal expansion prior to Hal Settlement, leaving Ac. 0.38 decs. Said land was recorded jointly in the names of Madan Swain and Amarendra Swain in the Hal Settlement ROR (1983) and thereafter in the Consolidation ROR published on 03.02.1993, without specification of shares. 

After 28 years, Opposite Party Nos. 4 to 9 filed a revision under Section 37(1) of the OCH & PFL Act claiming separate recording of land on the basis of the aforesaid Sale Deed and Gift Deed. The Commissioner, Consolidation allowed the revision, pursuant to which, separate RORs have been issued recording Ac.0.25 dec. in favour of the opposite parties and Ac.0.13 dec. in favour of the petitioners. Said order of the Commissioner, along with the order rejecting the recall application is impugned in the present writ petition.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the private opposite parties contending that the suit land had already been mutually partitioned between the parties long prior to the consolidation operation, though the ROR was recorded jointly. It is stated by them that Madan Swain was entitled to Ac.0.25 dec. and Amar Swain to Ac.0.13 dec., and the consolidation entry showing joint recording does not reflect the actual state of affairs. The Commissioner, after due consideration of the Sale Deed dated 21.07.1952 and Gift Deed dated 10.06.1967 as well as the materials on record, has rightly allowed the revision and directed correction of the ROR. It is also stated that, pursuant to the impugned order, the Tahasildar, after conducting field enquiry and verification of records has issued separate RORs in favour of the respective parties.

4. Heard Mr. G.N.Rout, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S. Ray, learned counsel for the Opposite party nos. 4,6,7,8, and 9 and Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

5. Mr. Rout would argue that the land in question was admittedly recorded jointly in the Hal Settlement ROR as well as in the Consolidation ROR without specification of shares, which carries a presumption of joint possession and equal entitlement. He further submits that the Commissioner erred in directing correction of the ROR solely on the basis of pre- settlement Sale Deed and Gift Deed, without taking into consideration the subsequent reduction of land due to acquisition of Ac.0.13 dec. for canal expansion. He also argues that the revisional authority in effect has partitioned the joint holding