Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK WP(C) No.19220 of 2018 An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. *** Khageswar Padhi & Others … Petitioner -VERSUS- The Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement & Others … Opposite Parties Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Petitioners : Mr. H.C.Sahoo,Advocate. For the Opposite Parties : Mr. P.K.Mohanty, ASC (for the O.P. No.1) Mr.M.K.Pati,Advocate (For the O.P.Nos.2 to 4) P R E S E N T:
Legal Reasoning
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA Date of Hearing: 25.02.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 11.03.2025 WP(C) No.19220 of 2018 Page 1 of 9 ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.— J UDGMENT 1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of the India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners challenging the final order dated 10.04.2018 (Annexure-1) passed in Revision Petition No.1039 of 2005 by the Opposite Party No.1 (Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack) praying for quashing the Annexure-1. 2. The petitioners and Opposite Parties of this writ petition were the petitioners and Opposite Parties respectively in revision petition No.1039 of 2005 before the Opposite Party No.1. In that revision petition No.1039 of 2005, the petitioners had prayed for correction of the Hal R.o.R. in respect of the Plot No.499, 500 under Hal Khata No.1090 corresponding to Sabik Plot No.604, 604/3758, 599, 599/3759 and 607 under Sabik Khata Nos.195 and 703 respectively in order to delete the names of the Opposite Parties of that revision from the Hal R.o.R. No.1090 stating that, Sabik Khata No.703 and 195 were recorded in the name of their predecessors in the year 1928. Out of all the Sabik recorded tenants, two sabik recorded tenants i.e. Gouri Padhi and Kangali Padhi died issueless, but, only the successors WP(C) No.19220 of 2018 Page 2 of 9 of one of the Sabik recorded tenant Fakir Padhi are possessing the said properties. The petitioners are the successors of Fakir Padhi. The Opposite Parties are strangers to the properties under Sabik Khata Nos.703 and 195 and in the said properties, they (opposite Parties) have no title and possession. During Hal Settlement, the Settlement Authorities wrongly recorded the said case land in favour of the Opposite Parties, for which, the names of the Opposite Parties are required to be deleted from the Hal R.o.R. and after deletion of their names from the Hal R.o.R., the names of the petitioners are required to be inserted. 3. The Opposite Parties objected to the above claims of the petitioners in the revision before the Opposite Party No.1 stating that, one of the Sabik recorded tenant i.e. Gouri Padhi had not died issueless, but, he had two sons. Out of his two sons, one son died issueless. His another son was Raghunath Padhi. The said Raghunath Padhi executed and registered a sale deed on dated 23.09.1942 in favour of the father of the Opposite parties i.e. Nanda Kishore Panda in respect of his share in the case land. Because, Gouri Padhi and Kangali Padhi had 25% share each, whereas, Fakir Padhi (predecessor of the petitioners) had 50% share. WP(C) No.19220 of 2018 Page 3 of 9 4. On the basis of the said sale deed, the Hal R.o.R of the case land has been recorded in the name of the Opposite Parties, in which, the petitioners has no interest. For which, the revision of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 5. After hearing from both the sides, the Opposite Party No.1 dismissed that revision petition No.1039 of 2005 of the petitioners thereof as per order dated 10.04.2018 (Annexure- 1) assigning the reasons that, on verification of records, it is found that, Gouri Padhi had died leaving behind her son Narahari Padhi. After the death of the Gouri Padhi, her share in the suit properties devolved upon his son Narahari Padhi. Subsequently, Narahari Padhi entered into spiritualism. For which, the spiritual Guru of Narahari Padhi named him as Raghunath Padhi @ Adhikari Narahari Das. The said Raghunath Padhi @ Adhikari Narahari Das sold his share in the case land to the father of the Opposite Parties i.e. Nanda Kishore Panda executing and registering sale deed No.6321 dated 23.09.1942 after receiving due consideration amount and delivered possession thereof. Subsequently after vesting of the suit properties with the Government, a OEA case No.2572 of 1964 under Sections 6 and 7 of the OEA Act was initiated against Nanda Kishore Panda and WP(C) No.19220 of 2018 Page 4 of 9 in such OEA case, the rent of the suit properties was fixed in the name of the father of the opposite Parties i.e. Nanda Kishore Panda. Thereafter, in the Hal R.o.R., the suit properties have been recorded in the name of the Opposite Parties, but, the petitioners of the revision petition challenged to the sale deed dated 23.09.1942 executed by Raghunath Padhi in favour of the father of the petitioner in respect of the case land stating that, the said sale deed is void and they also raised dispute in respect of the title and possession of the Opposite parties over the case land. The Opposite Party No.1 as per its final order dated 10.04.2018 (Annexure 1) dismissed to the revision petition No.1039 of 2005 of the petitioners assigning the reasons that, whether the sale deed dated 23.09.1942 in question in favour of the father of the Opposite Parties is void or voidable is a matter of declaration by the Competent Civil Court, but, not by the Opposite Party No.1 in the revision. 6. On being dissatisfied with the said order of dismissal to the Revision Petition No.1039 of 2005 of the petitioners passed by the Opposite Party No.1, the petitioners challenged the same by filing this writ petition. WP(C) No.19220 of 2018 Page 5 of 9 7. I have already heard from the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.2 to 4 and the learned Additional Standing counsel for the Opposite Party No.1. 8. It is forthcoming from the impugned order dated 10.04.2018 (Annexure 1) passed by the Opposite Party No.1 in revision petition No.1039 of 2005 that, the petitioners have challenged to the sale deed dated 23.09.1942 executed by the Raghunath Padhi @ Adhikari Narahari Das in favour of the father of the Opposite Parties i.e. Nanda Kishore Panda on the ground that, the above said sale deed is void and the Opposite Parties have no title and possession in the case land. 9. Now, the question arises, when the title and possession of the case land is under dispute between the parties, then at this juncture, whether the order of dismissal of the Revision Petition No.1039 of 2005 passed by the Opposite Party No.1 assigning the reasons that, whether the sale deed in question is void or voidable is a matter of declaration by a Competent Civil Court, but, not by him (Opposite Party No.1) is sustainable under law? WP(C) No.19220 of 2018 Page 6 of 9 On this aspect the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between The State of Gujarat Vrs. Patil Raghav Natha & Others reported in 1969 (2) S.C.C. 187 that, when the title of an occupant is disputed by any party before the Collector or the Commissioner and the dispute is serious, the appropriate course for the Collector or the Commissioner would be to refer the parties to a competent Court and not to decide the question of title himself against the occupant. (ii) In a case between Mithilesh Devi Vrs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2023 (3) Civ.C.C. 351 (Allhabad) that, Mutation on the basis of registered sale deed cannot be set aside or recalled unless registered sale deed executed in favour of petitioner is set aside in any legal proceeding. 10. Here in this writ petition at hand, when, the title and possession in the property in question is under dispute between the parties and the matter relating to the void or voidableness of the sale deed dated 23.09.1942 in question executed by Raghunath Padhi @ Adhikari Narahari Das in favour of the father of the Opposite Parties i.e. Nanda Kishore Panda is also under dispute between the parties and when as per the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court, the matter i.e. dispute relating to title and WP(C) No.19220 of 2018 Page 7 of 9 possession in the case land can only be decided by a Competent Civil Court, but not by the Commissioner and when it is the duties of the Revenue Authorities in such disputed matters to refer the parties to the Competent Civil Court for adjudication of their such disputes between the parties relating to title and possession in the case land and when, the Opposite Party No.1 (Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack) has dismissed the Revision Petition No.1039 of 2005 (Annexure 1) of the petitioners assigning the reasons that, the matter in dispute between the parties concerning the title, possession and genuineness of the sale deed in question is not adjudiciable before him, but, same is adjudiciable by the Competent Civil Court, then at this juncture, the aforesaid reasons assigned by the Opposite Party No.1 for the dismissal of the Revision Petition No.1039 of 2005 as per order vide Annexure 1 cannot be held unreasonable. So, the question of making interference with the same through this writ petition filed by the petitioner does not arise. As such, there is no merit in the writ petition of the petitioners. The same must fail. WP(C) No.19220 of 2018 Page 8 of 9 11. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed and disposed of finally on contest referring the parties to approach the Competent Civil Court for adjudication of their inter se disputes relating to title, possession and the nature of the sale deed dated 23.09.1942 in question in respect of the case land. (ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack 11.03.2025// Binayak Sahoo Jr. Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BINAYAK SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Mar-2025 13:00:10 WP(C) No.19220 of 2018 Page 9 of 9