The High Court · 1978
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.427 of 2024 Arising out of the common order dated 01.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.25231 of 2017 & W.P.(C) No. 25240 of 2017. 1.Binodini Pradhan 2.Durjay Pradhan 3.Judhistir Pradhan 4.Chandramani Pradhan 5.Nandini Pradhan 6. Susama Pradhan 7. Trilochana Pradhan -versus- 1. The Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur 2. Tahasildar, Rairkhol 3. Srimati Pradhan … Appellants …. Respondents W.A. No. 428 of 2024 1.Binodini Pradhan 2.Durjay Pradhan 3.Judhistir Pradhan 4.Chandramani Pradhan 5.Nandini Pradhan 6. Susama Pradhan 7. Trilochana Pradhan -versus- 1. The Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur 2. Tahasildar, Rairkhol 3. Srimati Pradhan … Appellants …. Respondents W.A. Nos.427 & 428 of 2024 Page 1 of 8 Advocates appeared in this case through Hybrid Mode :
Legal Reasoning
Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) No.25231 of 2017 & W.P.(C) No. 25240 of 2017 under Annexure-2. 2. The present appellants who are the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 25231 of 2017 and W.P.(C) No. 25240 of 2017 had challenged the common order passed by the Additional Commissioner Consolidation and Settlement, Sambalpur in Revision Petition No. 822 of 2013 and Revision Petition No. 824 of 2013 on 25.10.2017, wherein the learned Additional Commissioner Consolidation and Settlement, Sambalpur had allowed the Revision Petition W.A. Nos.427 & 428 of 2024 Page 2 of 8 in favour of respondent no.3-Srimati Pradhan and directing respondent no.2- Tahasildar, Rairakhol to delete the name of Mandodari Pradhan who is the mother-in-law and grand mother of present appellants from Khata No.23 of Village-Teleimal and Khata No. 96 of Khandahata and to record the name of present respondent no.3 who was the petitioner in Revision Petition i.e. R.P. Case No. 822 of 2013 and R.P. Case No. 824 of 2013. 3. The factual matrix of the present case is that one Brusav Pradhan was the common ancestor of all the parties. Brusav had three sons namely, Trilochan, Tuladhar and Bhagaban. Brusav died in the year 1955. Then in 1965 his three sons amicably partitioned the entire property of Brusav and possessed their respective shares separately. One ceiling case bearing No.61/75 was initiated on the properties of Brusav and the Revenue Officer in the said ceiling case has decided and allotted one ceiling unit to each son by order dated 30th September 1978, holding that there had been partition of the land of Brusav between his three sons prior to 26th September 1970. Accordingly Trilochan, Tuladhar and Bhagaban got one ceiling unit each with specific land schedule mentioned in the order of the Revenue Officer in the ceiling case. As Bhagaban was dead at the time of disposal of the ceiling case, opposite party no.3-Srimati Pradhan who is the wife of late Bhagaban was found entitled to own the share of land in respect of Bhagaban. But W.A. Nos.427 & 428 of 2024 Page 3 of 8 while doing so the name of Mandodari, who was the wife of Brusav, was added along with the name of opposite party No.3 in the tenant column of the RoR in the share of opposite party no.3. But the name of Mandodari was not added in respect of lands recorded in favour of other two sons namely Trilochan and Tuladhar. Mandodari died in the year 1995. Thus opposite party no.3 filed the revisions before the Additional Commissioner to delete the name of Mandodari from the tenant column. The revisional authority in the impugned order has allowed the prayer and directed the Tahasildar to correct the RoR. 4. It is claimed by the appellants who are the petitioners in the writ petitions that they being the legal heirs of Mandodari are entitled for their respective shares in respect of the RoR where the name of Mandodari was recorded along with the name of Srimati Pradhan (O.P. No.3). 5. Learned Single Judge has held as follows: “Having seen the original source of property which arose out of the ceiling case, where one ceiling unit was granted in favour of each son as per the direction of the Revenue Officer, the Petitioners are not found with any right in their favour to get shares for recording the name of Mandodari in the RoR. The grant of one ceiling unit in respect of each son based on the amicable partition arrived between the sons of Brusav prior W.A. Nos.427 & 428 of 2024 Page 4 of 8 to 1970 do not create any right in favour of Mandodari to have the share over such property fell to Srimati Pradhan (O.P. No.3) due to death of her husband-Bhagaban. The fact of amicable partition between the sons of Brusav in 1965 having not been disputed, no right is created in favour of Mandodari and her name, as held by the revisional authority, has been wrongly recorded in the RoR. It is important to mention here that the name of Mandodari who is wife of Brusav and mother of all the three sons, was not recorded in respect of land allotted in favour of other two sons, namely Trilochan and Tuladhar. However, once the fact of partition in 1965 between three sons is admitted and the enjoinment of property by them separately is not disputed, hardly any scope remains in favour of the Petitioners as the LRs of Trilochan and Tuladhar to have their rights over the property fell in respect of share of Bhagaban. Therefore, the direction of the revisional authority to delete the name of Mandodari and to correct the record in favour of Srimati Pradhan is found well justified without requiring any interference.
Arguments
For Appellants :Mr.Ananta Prasad Mishra, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. L. Samantaray, AGA (For Respondents No.1 and 2) Mr. Pranab Ranjan Chhatoi, Advocate (For Respondent No.3) CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO .………………………………………………………………………………….. Date of Judgment : 11.09.2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………. SAVITRI RATHO, J. In these intra court appeals, the appellants have challenged the common order dated 01.02.2024 passed by a learned Single
Decision
In the result, the impugned order is confirmed and both the writ petitions are dismissed.” 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, assailing the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, has vehemently argued that though there was amicable partition in 1965 and they were enjoying W.A. Nos.427 & 428 of 2024 Page 5 of 8 their respective shares as per their convenience physically, but no separate records had been prepared in favour of the Tuladhar and Trilochan except those two Khatas i.e. Khatas No.23 and 96 and total area of 36 acres and 20 decimals. As the ROR does not, mention how much area of land was allotted separately in respect of them, therefore, deletion of the name of Mandodari from the tenant column of ROR, as directed by the revisional authority was incorrect. He has argued that the total area of land which belonged to Brusav has been mentioned in both the Khatas No.23 and 96, which had not been taken into account by the revisional authority and the learned Single Judge. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that as the Tuladhar and Trilochan are the sons of Mandodari, they should have been given 1/3 share from the share of the land which had been recorded in the name of Mandodari and respondent no.3-Srimati Pradhan and that the extent of land recorded in favour of Srimati is much more than one ceiling unit. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents-State has submitted that such submission is misconceived and without any semblance of legal right as the name of Mandodari had been recorded in the tenant column of the RoR of opposite party no.3 who was widow of her son Bhagaban who had been allotted one share during partition of the land of Brusav. W.A. Nos.427 & 428 of 2024 Page 6 of 8 9. After having perused the materials on records and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, we find no legal infirmity in the order passed by the revisional authority and the order passed by the learned Single Judge affirming the order of the revisional authority. Respondent No.3 had approached the revisional authority for deletion of the name of Mandodari from the ROR in respect of share of property which Bhagaban had received. The appellants at no point of time questioned the ROR prepared in favour of Srimati on the ground that the said ROR contained total area of the property belonging to Brusav. In any case, such aspect cannot be gone into in a writ proceeding. 10. No share had been given to Mandodari at the time of partition in the year 1965 and this had not been challenged by Mandodari or her two sons- Trilochan and Tuladhar and the three brothers have been enjoying their separate shares since then. That apart, as the partition in the year 1965 is admitted, there can be no justification for giving any share to Trilochan and Tuladhar from the share of Bhagaban which is recorded in the name of his wife Srimati merely because the name of his mother Mandodari was recorded in the tenants column. 11. In view of the above observations, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned common order dated 01.02.204 passed in W.P.(C) No. W.A. Nos.427 & 428 of 2024 Page 7 of 8 25231 of 2017 and W.P.(C) No. 25240 of 2017. 12. The writ appeals are accordingly dismissed. Chief Justice. I agree. (Savitri Ratho) Judge (Chakradhari Sharan Singh) Chief Justice Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated 11.09.2024/puspa Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 05-Dec-2024 16:56:01 W.A. Nos.427 & 428 of 2024 Page 8 of 8