Sidheswar Das State of Odisha & Ors. … v. …
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P (C) No.14291 of 2014 Sidheswar Das State of Odisha & Ors. ….. Vs. ….. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. S.N. Das, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Muduli, AGA (O.Ps.1 -7) CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE B.P. SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 12.01.2023 Order No. 8 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State- opposite parties. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to opposite parties to restore the possession of the land as per ROR under Annexure-3 in favour of the petitioner or pay compensation for the land as per the present market rate within a stipulated period. 4. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was granted ROR 2 of the land, basing upon which he has got right to possess the land. Therefore, cancellation of ROR subsequently in the appeal cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 5. Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties contended that the land in question comes under the Balukhanda Reserve Forest, which has been notified under Section-21 of the Indian Forest Act by the then Government of Bihar and Odisha through a series of notifications from 1918 to 1934. Therefore, the question of acquiring the land or payment of compensation to the petitioner does not arise. As such, the petitioner had obtained the ROR fraudulently managing with the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Puri. Thereby, the ROR of the land, having been cancelled in the appeal, the petitioner has no right over the said land. 6. Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that the petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of the land situated over plot no.217 of area Ac.3.00 dec., Khata No.136 of Mouza-Mohinipur with status Stitiban. The said ROR was prepared and issued to him in the year 1998 in the Consolidation Operation by the Consolidation authorities and the petitioner has been regularly paying the land revenue. When the construction of boundary wall was started by the side of the road from Puri to Konark by the Forest Department on the instructions of opposite parties no.5, 6 & 7 on the ground to protect the Balukhanda-Konark Wildlife Sanctuary, he objected to the same, but the same was not considered. But 3 fact remains the area in question comes under the Balukhanda Reserve Forest, which has been notified under Section-21 of the Indian Forest Act by the Government of Bihar and Odisha through a series of notifications from 1918 to 1934 and boundary wall of the Reserve Forest was posted clearly demarcating its boundary and is being maintained till date. Considering the importance of protection of the said Reserve Forest from wildlife point of view, the area was notified as Balukhanda-Konark (Wildlife) Sanctuary, vide Gazette Notification dated 23.04.1984, which covers the entire Balukhanda Reserve Forest along with six other forest Blocks under Section-18 of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. An area of Ac.70.40 (Govt. land) in village Sahukhunta near Ramachandi and far away from Balukhanda Reserve Forest was excluded from the limits of Balukhanda-Konark (Wildlife) Sanctuary, vide Gazette Notification dated 01.09.1987, which has no bearing with the land, as claimed by the petitioner. 7. Challenging the wrongful recording of the case land in the name of the petitioner in the ROR, the Tahasildar, Puri preferred R.P. Case No.23 of 2002 under Section 37(1) of OCHPFL Act before the Commissioner, Consolidation seeking correction of the ROR by way of recording of the land as Govt. land. The Commissioner, Consolidation remanded the said R.P. Case to the Addl. Sub-Collector-cum- Consolidation Officer, Puri, who took up the case as RRP No.23 of 2002. After giving opportunity of hearing to Rama Sundari Dei, wife of late Govinda Chandra Das (mother of the 4 petitioner in whose favour the ROR had been wrongfully recorded, the Addl. Sub-Collector-cum-Consolidation Officer, Puri, vide order dated 21.10.2014 directed to delete the case land from Hal Khata No.133, Hal Plot No.187/216 (Ac.3.00) and record the same in the “Rakhit” Khata of Government with Kissam Jungle and further issued direction to send the order to the Tahasildar, Puri for necessary correction of the ROR. Therefore, the petitioner had fraudulently managed through the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Puri to get the land recorded in his name and the Patta was illegally issued by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Puri in the year 1999 violating all the procedures and norms. 8. The specific contentions raised in paragraphs-12 and 13 of the counter affidavit are stated hereunder: The land in question being part of “12. xxxxxxxx Balukhanda Reserve Forest (Notified under section-21 of Indian Forest Act by the Government of Bihar and Odisha through a series of notifications from 1918 to 1934) question of acquiring the land or payment of compensation does not arise. The petitioner has fraudulently managed to obtain the Patta (ROR) over the piece of land by unfair means through the Consolidation Authorities, which illegal and punishable under the law. is 13. That as regards para-11, it is humbly submitted that the Petitioner has no claim over the land and had fraudulently managed to obtain the Patta through the Asst. Consolidation Officer, Puri which has already been set at naught by the Consolidation Officer, Puri. The forest land, which is part of the Balukhanda-Konark Wildlife Sanctuary, is to be protected from illegal encroachment by the land Mafias of the area in the best interest of forest and wildlife of the district as well as to protect the coastal population from the cyclonic storms. The claims of the Petitioner are liable to be dismissed and exemplary stringent action should be initiated against the Petitioner to prevent further similar frivolous litigations”. 5 In view of the aforesaid contentions, since in the appeal, the land is restored back to the Government and fraud was played by the petitioner to get the land recorded in his favour through the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Puri, no right can be accrued in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, non-disclosure of facts or suppression of facts leads to “fraudulent practice”. 9. In Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi, (2003) 8 SCC 319, the apex Court held has follows:- “Fraud as is well-known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwells together. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person, or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of former either by word or letter. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentations may also give reason to claim relief against fraud. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application f any equitable doctrine including res-judicata.” The said principle has also been referred to by this Court in the case of Umesh Chandra Chinera (supra) and PMR Consortium v. Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation & Ors., 2023 (I) OLR 127. The said view has also been taken by the apex Court in Bhaurao Dagdu Parlakar (supra). The elaborate discussion has been made with regard to the meaning of fraud in Shrisht Dhawan v. Shaw Bros, (1992 1 SCC 534, which has also 6 been referred to in Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal, (2002) 1 SCC 100, Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, (2003) 8 SCC 311 and Ashok Leyland Ltd v State of T.N., (2004) 3 SCC 1. 10. In view of such position, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same is dismissed. Alok (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE (B. P. SATAPATHY) JUDGE