A pending civil suit regarding land ownership limits the court's ability to make conclusive findings on that ownership, enforcing adherence to settlement operations based on factual measurements.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

1. The petitioner questions the correctness of order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Kalahandi in S.R.P. No.546 of 2015.

2. The facts of the case, briefly stated are that the petitioner and the proforma Opposite Party purchased land measuring Ac.0.71 dec from one Chitrasen Naik by virtue of Registered Sale Deed No.2054 dated 19.12.1997 on a consideration of Rs.22,500/- and they were put in physical possession of the land after actual field measurement. During the settlement operation, the petitioner and the proforma Opposite Party submitted application for recording of the purchased land in their names, which was allowed but the land was recorded in a separate khata with the area being reduced to Ac. 0.61dec. instead of Ac. 0.71 dec with the remaining land being recorded in the name of the vendor Chitrasen Naik in a separate khata. The petitioner therefore, filed revision under Section 15 (b) of the Orissa Survey & Settlement Act, 1958 (OSS Act) before the Additional Commissioner with prayer to enhance the area of his land as purchased by them. Notice of the revision was issued and the matter was heard in the presence of the Opposite Parties and the revision petitioners.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the report of the Tahasildar, Dharmagarh and Additional Sub-Collector, Settlement Bhawanipatna, learned Additional Commissioner allowed the revision in part by directing recording of only Ac.0.01 dec. of land instead of Ac.0.10 dec. According to the petitioner, such order is completely erroneous being beyond the prayer of the petitioner.

4. Pursuant to notice, only Opposite Party No.3 appeared in person. The State counsel represented the Additional Commissioner.

5. Heard Mr. A. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Bhabani Shankar Naik, (O.P. No.3) in person.

6. Mr. Routray would argue that the Additional Commissioner committed error in directing adjustment of land from one plot to other ignoring the fact that the purchased area of the petitioner and proforma Opposite Party is Ac. 0.71 dec. As a result, instead of directing recording of Ac.0.71 dec. from out of the purchased plots, learned Commissioner directed adjustment by bringing Ac. 0.03 dec from Hal Plot No.1513/3251 and Ac.0.02 from Hal Plot No.1512 in the name of the petitioner and transfer of Ac. 0.01 dec from Hal Plot No.1512/3250. Thus, the petitioner’s grievance remains unresolved.

7. Mr. Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that a civil suit is pending in relation to one of the plots purchased by the petitioner and the proforma Opposite Party. Moreover, the Tahasildar found that the vendor Chitrasen Naik had sold more land than what was available in one of the plots, namely Sabik Plot No.1107. He therefore, submits that this is a civil dispute and since the same is pending before the civil Court, in the absence of any order being passed, the Additional Commissioner rightly allowed the revision in part by way of adjustment of land from different plots.

8. Mr. Bhabani Shankar Naik (O.P. No.3) submits that the dispute relating to the extent of land is pending before the civil Court and therefore, the revisional Court rightly allowed only that portion of the land, which is not involved in the civil suit and is in possession of the petitioner and the proforma Opposite Party.

9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record