The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.4526 of 2023 Sanjukta Panigrahi …. Petitioner Mr. S.P. Das, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. T.K. Pattnaik, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 24.02.2023 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with a prayer to quash the order dated 03.01.2023 passed by the Opposite Party No.3-Collector, Rayagada under Annexure-6 to the writ petition and further with a direction to the Opposite Parties to procure the paddy from her against her farmer registration Code No.F27090002838 forthwith as the last date for procurement is 31.03.2023. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the present Petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the original recorded owner of the land, namely, late Dinabandhu Panigrahi. // 2 // The Petitioner being one of the co-owner of the land had raised paddy crops on the land. Accordingly, she had applied for procurement of the paddy crops under Kharif Marketing Season (KMS) 2022-23 Scheme and she was assigned the farmer registration number as has been recorded hereinabove. 5. The grievance of the Petitioner is that despite the fact that she was registered as a farmer by the authorities, the Opposite Parties have not procuring the paddy which has been raised by the Petitioner. It is further contended that one of the legal heirs of late Dinabandhu Panigrahi, the recorded owner, raised an objection before the Collector, Rayagada. On perusal of the said objection, it appears that the objection is very specific and with regard to a share of the joint family property. Furthermore, the objector is the grandson (daughter’s son of late Dinabandhu Panigrahi, the recorded owner of the land). On perusal of the said objection, it also appears that the objector has not raised any objection with regard to the ownership of the crop. Therefore, on a plain reading of the objection, it appears that the objection is with regard to the ownership of the land and not with regard to ownership of the crop. 6. In the aforesaid background, the Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.32399 of 2022 and this Court vide order dated 07.12.2022
Decision
disposed of the writ petition directing the Petitioner to file fresh representation before the Opposite Party No.3 and the Opposite Party No.3 was directed to consider the same within a stipulated // 3 // period of time. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 07.12.2022, the Petitioner approached the Opposite Party No.3 by filing a representation on 21.12.2022. The Opposite Party No.3 vide order dated 03.01.2023 under Annexure-6 rejected the representation of the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner should have furnished the consent letter of other co-sharers. Therefore, the representation was rejected on the ground that the claim of the Petitioner is devoid of merit. 7. On perusal of the impugned order dated 03.01.2023, it appears that the Opposite Party No.3 has referred to a clarification issued by the Government of Odisha in Food Supplies and Consumer Welfare Department vide their letter No.11536 dated 11.08.2021. At issue no.1 of the said letter, it has been clarified that the Society officials know in most cases, who is cultivating joint family lands and who sells the produce in the mandi as a registered farmer every year without any dispute. However, where society officials have a genuine doubt in respect of such claims the applicant farmer (co-sharer) may be asked to furnish consent letters of other co-sharer(s) or legal heir(s) of deceased co-sharer(s) to establish his claim. Further, it has also been stated in the said clarification that in complicated cases, help of revenue authorities like R.I., wherever it is strictly felt necessary, may be taken to resolve the matters. 8. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the Opposite Party No.3-Collector, Rayagada by referring to the failure of the Petitioner to produce the consent // 4 // letters of other co-sharers has rejected the claim of the Petitioner. 9. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties submitted that since the authorities working on the ground encounter such type of difficulties every day, the concerned administrative department has issued a clarification and cases involving dispute with regard to procurement of crops in case of co-ownership land or joint family land are being dealt with in the light of the clarification issued vide letter dated 11.08.2021. Therefore, the Opposite Party No.3 has considered the case of the Petitioner keeping in view the clarification of the concerned administrative department vide order dated 11.08.2021. Therefore, no fault can be found with the conduct of the Opposite Party No.3 and the order passed by the Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-6 cannot be challenged on the ground that same is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, this Court should not interfere in this matter and the writ petition be dismissed by holding that the same is devoid of merit. 10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, on the other hand, submits that there was no dispute with regard to the ownership of the crop. Further, referring to the objection under Annexure-3, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the objector claiming himself to be one of the legal heirs of the deceased recorded owner, it has claimed the share of his mother in the joint family property. He has not raised any objection with regard to ownership of the crop. Therefore, the authorities // 5 // should have procured the crops for KMS 2022-23, otherwise the crops raised by the Petitioner would be destroyed with the passage of time. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and upon a careful consideration of the factual background of the present case, this Court found that the impugned order dated 03.01.2023 under Annexure-6 passed by the Opposite Party No.3 referring to the clarification issued by the Government of Odisha in Food Supplies and Consumer Welfare Department vide letter No.11536 dated 11.08.2021. On perusal of the impugned order, this Court also observes that the claim of the Petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that it was failed to produce the consent letters of other co-sharers. On a careful analysis of the factual background, this Court is of the considered view that in a case where there is dispute over the joint family property, normally the co-sharers do not come forward to give consent letters in favour of the one of the co- sharers, even if he has genuinely raised the crops over the land. Therefore, the authorities are duty bound to find out as to who has raised the crops over the land. So far the ownership of the land is concerned, it cannot be conclusively said that the Petitioner is not the owner of the land, as one of the co-sharers, he definitely has a share in the land which stands recorded in the name of the deceased father-in-law. 12. Therefore, this court is also of the considered view that the Opposite Party No.3-Collector, Rayagada before rejecting the // 6 // claim of the Petitioner should have called for a report from the R.I. to find out as to who has raised the crops over the land in question although the objector has not claimed the ownership of the crop of the land. Moreover, the Opposite Party No.3 should have allowed the corps to be procured and money should have kept in a separate account and the same should have been released subject to satisfaction of the ownership of the crop. Further, it is relevant to observe that so far ownership of the land is concerned, the Opposite Party No.3 is not the competent authority to take a decision with regard to the ownership of the land. The same can only be adjudicated by a common law forum, i.e., a competent civil court having jurisdiction over the subject matter of dispute. In the present case, the dispute should have been confined to the ownership of the crop and the same could have been easily ascertained through the local authorities like the R.I. as to who has raised the crops instead of passing a blanket order by saying that the Petitioner has not produced the consent letters of co-sharers. 13. In such view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation to quash the order dated 03.01.2023 passed by the Opposite Party No.3-Collector, Rayagada under Annexure-6 and, accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.3-Collector, Rayagada to consider the matter afresh by calling for a report from the revenue authorities like the R.I., which is also provided under the clarification issued by the Government of Odisha in Food Supplies and Consumer Welfare Department vide their letter No.11536 dated 11.08.2021 // 7 // and take a decision thereafter. Opposite Party No.3 is further directed to take a decision in the matter expeditiously, preferably not later than two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 14. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. 15. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Debasis