AFR IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.13928 of 2019 Radhamohan Das and Others … Petitioners Mr. Satyabadi Mantry, Advocate -Versus-

Commissioner of Consolidation, … Opposite Parties Orissa, Cuttack and others Mr. D.P. Mohanty, Advocate for O.P. No.4 Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA CORAM:

JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK DATE OF JUDGMENT:03.04.2025

1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned orders as at Annexures-4 to 6 and to modify the same with a declaration for them to be recorded as sikimi raiyats with opposite party No.4 having no semblance of title in respect of the case land.

2. As per the petitioner, the subject matter in question was recorded with one Maulabi Sayed Tajmul Ali as an occupancy raiyat situate over Khata No.927 measuring an area of Ac.7.67 decimals, inasmuch as, the lands were recorded in the names of 9 sikimi raiyats under Sikimi Khata Nos.47 to 56 and while claiming so, a copy of the RoR of 1930 as at Annexures-1 and 1/A is referred to. It is further pleaded that all the sikimi raiyats having died, the case land was resumed prior to 1936 and on 6^th July, 1936 after the death of the raiyat named above, his legal heirs executed a power of attorney in favour of the raiyat’s son- in-law, namely, Mujibur Rahaman and on 15^th September, 1944, the father of the petitioners was inducted as a permanent raiyat and was delivered possession of the case land and it was by virtue of a Hat Patta but in the meantime, on 23^rd February, 1951 and 15^th September, 1953, the legal heirs of the occupancy raiyat sold the case land to one Oulad Alli, which are void and the further pleading is that during Major settlement in 1965, Yadast was prepared in the name of the petitioner’s father in respect of the case land as sikimi raiyat and ever since, such possession, the rents were paid and received by the landlord and in that connection, the receipts dated 21^st May, 1944 and 19^th June, 1962 have been referred as Annexures-2 and 2/A with the last of the receipts dated 10^th February, 1986 at Annexure-3 besides the rents paid in respect of Raiyati Khata No.927 as Annexures-3/A and 3/B. It is claimed by the petitioners that on 2^nd June, 1969, the father of opposite party No.4 admitting such tenancy of the petitioner’s father and also possession by the latter, submitted a proposal for sale of the case land which was not accepted and thereafter, the sale deed dated 25^th June, 1974 was executed in respect of the sikimi tenancy right from one Akuli Nanda, son of one of the sikimi tenants, namely, Padmanabha Nanda and similarly, said Oulad Alli sold the interest in respect of the case land on 1^st August, 1974 in favour of opposite party No.4 through a registered sale deed and in so far as, such transfer of sikimi right in 1974 is concerned, the claim is that the same is void and also the subsequent transfer, furthermore when, the father of the petitioners had already acquired tenancy right since 1944, so therefore, the question of selling any such right by a non-existent sikimi tenant cannot convey any valid title. The petitioners also pleaded that before the Major settlement could be concluded, the case land was brought within the sweep of the Consolidation operation with the issuance of notification and that time, the land record was illegally prepared in the name of opposite party No.4, to which the petitioners filed Objection Case No.3721 of 1984 in terms of Section 9(3) of the OCH & PFL Act, 1975 before opposite party No.3, who, however, dismissed the same with the findings that the father of the petitioner was inducted as under-raiyat by the occupancy raiyats in 1944 accepting the rent from him as a sub-tenant and it was by virtue of Hat Patta, an unregistered document and opposite party No.4 purchase of sikimi right from Akuli Nanda was without consent of the occupancy raiyats and new occupancy right cannot be created during consolidation and since, all the LRs of the original recorded tenants have not sold