Regulation case barred by limitation; court emphasized the necessity of proving transactions under relevant laws and acknowledged the principle of adverse possession despite the lack of direct evidence for the transaction.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

In the present writ application, the petitioner questions the correctness of order dated 22.09.2010 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Sundargarh in Revenue Appeal No.23 of 2002.

2. The facts of the case are that one Nanku Ray, father- in-law of the original petitioner Urmila Ray, purchased the suit land from its recorded owner Sridhar Dalai, the ancestor of present Opposite Party Nos.6 and 7 in January, 1950. After due enquiry, the revenue authorities recorded the land in his name in the Record of Rights. After death of her father-in-law, the land was recorded in her name. The private Opposite Parties initiated a case against the petitioner being Regulation Case No.144 of 1977 under the provisions of Regulation-II of 1956 before the SDO, Bonai to evict the petitioner from the land. After due enquiry, said proceeding was dropped. The private Opposite Parties again filed an application under the provisions of Regulation-II vide Regulation Case No.1 of 1995 seeking eviction of the petitioner from the suit land and restoration of the land in their favour. Said case was filed on the ground that the private Opposite Parties belong to the Schedule Tribe Community and without permission of the authority the land had been illegally transferred to the father-in-law of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, her father-in-law had purchased the land by way of oral purchase in the year 1950 by paying the consideration money and took delivery of possession. During Hal Settlement, the land was recorded in her father-in-law’s name. In the year 1975, Nanku Ray gifted the suit land in favour of the petitioner vide Registered Gift Deed No.375 dated 28.01.1979 and since then, the petitioner is in his possession and paying rent regularly. Considering such facts and documents, the authorities recorded the name of the petitioner in the ROR.

The Sub-Collector, Bonai without granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner passed an order for her eviction on 12.05.1987 against which the petitioner filed Revenue Appeal No.10 of 1987 before the A.D.M., Sundargarh. The appeal was allowed and the case was remanded for fresh hearing. The Sub-Collector, in his order dated 12.04.2002 upheld his earlier order of eviction, against which the petitioner preferred Revenue Appeal No.23 of 2002. By order dated 25.02.2004, the A.D.M dismissed the appeal. The petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.448 of 2004. This Court, by order dated 14.03.2007 remanded the matter to the A.D.M for fresh hearing and to determine the question whether the land in question situates in Merged States and whether the provisions of the Merged State Laws are applicable. The A.D.M however, again dismissed the appeal upholding the order of eviction by order dated 22.09.2010. Said order is impugned in the present writ application.

According to the petitioner, the impugned order is contrary to the documentary evidence on record, such as Yadast Report of 1963, Amin’s Report of 1967 and Munsarim’s Mistake List countersigned by the Assistant Settlement Officer to show that the father-in-law of the petitioner after purchasing the land in 1950 was in possession thereof. The Record of Rights and rent receipts also prove the said fact. It is also contended that the petitioner’s father-in-law having purchased the land in January, 1950, that is, before coming into force of the Merged State Laws, its provisions are not applicable. O