The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Mar-2024 16:40:02 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos.18243, 18246, 18247, 18270 & 18271 of 2018 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) In W.P.(C) No.18243 of 2018 Subash Chandra Sahoo and others …. Petitioners -versus- Member, Board Odisha, Cuttack and another of Revenue, …. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioners : Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. K.K. Das, A.S.C. For O.P. No.1
Legal Reasoning
Mr. B.P. Tripathy, Advocate For O.P. No.2 In W.P.(C) No.18246 of 2018 Haribandhu Sahoo …. Petitioner -versus- Member, Board Odisha, Cuttack and another of Revenue, …. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. K.K. Das, A.S.C. For O.P. No.1 Mr. B.P. Tripathy, Advocate For O.P. No.2 W.P.(C) Nos.18243, 18246, 18247, 18270 & 18271 of 2018 Page 1 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Mar-2024 16:40:02 In W.P.(C) No.18247 of 2018 P. Chenya Reddy …. Petitioner -versus- Member, Board Odisha, Cuttack and another of Revenue, …. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. K.K. Das, A.S.C. For O.P. No.1 Mr. B.P. Tripathy, Advocate For O.P. No.2 In W.P.(C) No.18270 of 2018 Nrusingha Charan Dash …. Petitioner -versus- Member, Board Odisha, Cuttack and another of Revenue, …. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. K.K. Das, A.S.C. For O.P. No.1 Mr. B.P. Tripathy, Advocate For O.P. No.2 In W.P.(C) No.18271 of 2018 Manika Patra …. Petitioner -versus- Member, Board Odisha, Cuttack and another of Revenue, …. Opposite Parties W.P.(C) Nos.18243, 18246, 18247, 18270 & 18271 of 2018 Page 2 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Mar-2024 16:40:02 Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. K.K. Das, A.S.C. For O.P. No.1 Mr. B.P. Tripathy, Advocate For O.P. No.2 CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 21st March, 2024 B.P. Routray, J.
Decision
1. All the writ petitions involving same issues were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The common case of the Petitioners is that, they were granted Bhoodan Lands in mouza-Balukhanda in the district of Puri in 1983 by the then Nivedak of Anchalika Bhoodan Yagna Samiti, Puri and since then they were in possession of the lands by constructing their residential houses. 3. In W.P.(C) No.18243 of 2018, the land pertains to Plot No.50/233 measuring area Ac.0.55 decimals, in W.P.(C) No.18246 of 2018, Plot No.50/218 measuring area Ac.0.027 2/3 decimals, in W.P.(C) No.18247 of 2018, Plot No.50/201 measuring area Ac.0.027 W.P.(C) Nos.18243, 18246, 18247, 18270 & 18271 of 2018 Page 3 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Mar-2024 16:40:02 ½ decimals, in W.P.(C) No.18270 of 2018, Plot No.50/144 measuring area Ac.0.055 decimals and in W.P.(C) No.18271 of 2018, Plot No.50/240 measuring area Ac.0.055 decimals. The lands were initially recorded in the name of Utkal Bhoodan Yagna Samiti and all such lands were granted in favour of predecessors of the respective Petitioners on 25.6.1983. Pursuant to the grant and donation deed executed in Form No.VII of the Bhoodan and Gramadan Rules, 1970, the Petitioners applied for mutation of the case lands in their names respectively in 1999, which was rejected by the Tahasildar, Puri. Against the same, they preferred Mutation Appeals to the Sub- Collector, Puri and the Sub-Collector by order dated 30.9.2002 allowed the appeals by setting aside the order of the Tahasildar with a direction to the Tahasildar to take necessary follow up action. Thereafter the Tahasildar issued Bhoodan Patta in favour of the Petitioners on 7.7.2006. 4. Challenging the order dated 30.9.2002 of the Sub-Collector, Puri, present Opposite Party No.2, i.e. Odisha Bhoodan Yagna Samiti filed revision before the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack under Section 32 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act (OSS Act) and the Member, Board of Revenue in the impugned order dated W.P.(C) Nos.18243, 18246, 18247, 18270 & 18271 of 2018 Page 4 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Mar-2024 16:40:02 27.12.2016 set aside the order of the Sub-Collector, Puri and directed to record the case lands in the name of Utkal Bhoodan Yagna Samiti. This is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petitions. 5. According to the Petitioners, the revision preferred by Opposite Party No.2 under Section 32 of the OSS Act is not maintainable and secondly, the lands allotted in favour of the Petitioners by the Nivedak of Anchalika Bhoodan Yagna Samiti and issuance of Form No.VII in favour of the Petitioners cannot be termed as unauthorized in absence of materials. It is the contention of the Petitioners that the Nivedak has the authority to grant the land by executing Form No.VII as per the guidelines issued in that respect. 6. Conversely, it is contended by Orissa Bhoodan Yagna Samiti (Opposite Party No.2) that, the Nivedak has acted beyond his authority to grant the lands in favour of the Petitioners and to issue Form No.VII. The Orissa Bhoodan Yagna Samiti or Anchalika Bhoodan Yagna Samiti, Puri have at no point of time authorized the Nivedak either to execute Form No.VII in favour of the predecessors of the Petitioners or have approved the grant of land in their favour. The action of the then Nivedak is a complete fraud committed on the Bhoodan Yagna Samiti W.P.(C) Nos.18243, 18246, 18247, 18270 & 18271 of 2018 Page 5 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Mar-2024 16:40:02 and as such the order of the Member, Board of Revenue to set aside the order of the Sub-Collector is justified. 7. Before delving into the submission of the Petitioners with regard to maintainability of revision under Section 32 of the OSS Act before the Member, Board of Revenue, it needs to be mentioned here that initially the Petitioners, after the land was settled in favour of Bhoodan Yagna Samiti in 1989 in the settlement operation, had approached the Tahasildar for mutation of the land in their favour. The Tahasildar had refused their prayer to mutate the lands and against the same, the Petitioners approached the Land Reforms Commissioner in R.P. Case No.293 of 1999 under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act. In the said revision, the learned LRC by order dated 08.02.2000 remanded the matter back to the Tahasildar for fresh verification of the claim of the Petitioners and also to conduct physical verification with regard to their possession over the land. This being the admitted position that the Petitioners had approached the LRC invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act, it is not at all new on the part of the Opposite Parties to invoke the revisional jurisdiction under the same OSS Act. So far as invoking the jurisdiction under Section 32 of the OSS Act is concerned, said provision prescribes that, the Board of W.P.(C) Nos.18243, 18246, 18247, 18270 & 18271 of 2018 Page 6 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Mar-2024 16:40:02 Revenue may call for and shall pass such order in respect of any proceeding, where no appeal lies, if such Officer has exercised jurisdiction not vested in him by law or have failed to exercise the jurisdiction or while exercising jurisdiction has contravened the express provision of law affecting the decision of merits resulting serious miscarriage of justice. 8. The Petitioners contend that, there was no illegal exercise of jurisdiction or contravention of express provision of law or abuse of power by the Sub-Collector and as such the exercise of revision jurisdiction by the Board of Revenue under Section 32 of the OSS Act is not maintainable or warranted. The objections of the Petitioners are found without any basis since the power of Board of Revenue to revise the orders in any proceeding before such Revenue Officer is clear and unambiguous. The order of the Sub-Collector, impugned before the Board of Revenue, was against the order of the Tahasildar passed under the provisions of the OSS Act and it is the specific case of the Samiti that grant of land was without any authority on the part of the local Nivedak. W.P.(C) Nos.18243, 18246, 18247, 18270 & 18271 of 2018 Page 7 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Mar-2024 16:40:02 9. Rule 11(3) of the Odisha Bhoodan and Gramadan Rules, 1972 (in short “Rules”) provide that, the Samiti or such other person duly authorized by the Samiti shall grant the donation deed duly executed in Form No.VII. In the instant case, the local Nivedak, namely, Jagabandhu Senapati, who granted the land executing the deed in Form No.VII, was never authorized by the Samiti to do so under Rule 11 of the Rules. Not a single material has been produced on record to reveal authorization on the part of Jagabandhu Senapati as the local Nivedak to grant donation deed. It needs to be mentioned here that, due to such fraudulent actions taken by Jagabandhu Senapati, he was reverted to lower post and then retrenched from his service on 22.12.1987. It is specifically submitted on behalf of the Samiti that, said Jagabandhu Senapati was never authorized to grant any land or to execute the deed of donation in favour of the Petitioners. The Petitioners are unable to show any material or authority on the part of the local Nivedak (Jagabandhu Senapati) to execute the deed of donation or grant of land in their favour. The same is further fortified from the fact that, such grant and execution of donation deed has not been registered in Form No.VIII of the Samiti in terms of Rule 12 of the said Rules. Therefore, it is clear that the local Nivedak, namely, Jagabandhu Senapati had W.P.(C) Nos.18243, 18246, 18247, 18270 & 18271 of 2018 Page 8 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Mar-2024 16:40:02 executed the donation deed without any authorization of the Samiti by misusing his position as such. He did not have any competency to do so and therefore, the Petitioners cannot derive any benefit from such actions of the local Nivedak. 10. The findings of the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack to set aside the order of the Sub-Collector, Puri dated 30.09.2002 is thus confirmed and the writ petitions are dismissed. (B.P. Routray) Judge B.K. Barik/Secretary W.P.(C) Nos.18243, 18246, 18247, 18270 & 18271 of 2018 Page 9 of 9