The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 03. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.25525 of 2023 Biranchi Narayan Moharana …. Petitioner Mr. G.M. Rath, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
Decision
ORDER 17.12.2024 1. Heard Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State. 2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 11th July, 2013 passed in connection with Rent Case Nos.6509 and 5738 of 2013 by opposite party No.3 under Annexure-5 and order of confirmation in Suit Case No.155 of 2022 as at Annexure-6 by opposite party No.2 on the grounds stated therein. 3. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the lease in respect of the schedule land was in favour of Bhramara Behera issued in connection with WL Lease Case No.481 of 1959-60 and thereafter, it was sold vide Annexure-2 in favour of one Himansu Sekhar Mishra and while claiming so, he refers to Annexures-2 and 3 respectively. It is further submitted by Mr. Rath, learned counsel that the land in question was further sold in the year 1992 as per Annexure-4 series in favour of the present petitioner. It is claimed that draft RoR was published in the name of the petitioner, and thereafter, the impugned order under Annexure- Page 1 of 4 5 was passed in Rent Case Nos.6509 and 5738 of 2013 denying the settlement of the schedule land acquired through sale deed. As further submitted, the impugned order in the rent proceeding has been confirmed vide Annexure-6. The contention of Mr. Rath, learned counsel is that such confirmation order is on the promise that the petitioner failed to submit the details of the description of the Sabik and Hal records and when such jurisdiction could not have been exercised in view of the recent decision of this Court in Narottam Rath Vrs. State of Odisha and another in W.P.(C) No.1608 of 2014 and batch of matters decided on 2nd January, 2023. So therefore, the contention is that the impugned orders under Annexures-5 and 6 are liable to be set aside with a direction to opposite party No.3 to record the schedule land in favour of the petitioner with the issuance of RoR forthwith. 4. Recorded the submission of Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State, as according to whom, the impugned order under Annexure-5 is justified as the petitioner failed to submit the relevant documents with reference to Sabik and Hal records and rightly, confirmed vide Annexure-6. 5. In reply and response to above, Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the additional affidavit and submits that the lease patta was collected, which is not accompanied with sketch map and the record with regard to the lease proceeding is lying at the disposal of learned Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar. It is claimed that the sketch map at the time of the transaction in the year 1982 by the lessee in favour of previous vendee is attached to the sale deed dated 31st March, 1982. In view of the above, the submission of Mr. Rath, learned counsel is that the schedule land should be directed to be recorded in the name of the petitioner as there is no material on record to show that the lease originally issued was ever cancelled. Page 2 of 4 6. Recording the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and since the rent proceeding was disposed of vide Annexure-5 and it was confirmed thereafter as per Annexure-6, as the flow of title is shown and revealed from Annexure-1 followed by the sale deeds and gift deed executed in favour of the petitioner in the year 2013 and later thereto, rent proceeding was initiated, keeping in view the decision of this Court in Narottam Rath (supra) and as there is no material brought to the notice of this Court regarding cancellation of the lease in favour of the lessee in the year 1959-60, the Court is of the conclusion that the schedule land should be directed to be recorded accordingly. 7. In fact, this Court while dealing with the jurisdiction of the ASOs, issued the following directions which are extracted herein below. “22. In that view of the matter, the following directions are issued in all these writ petitions: (i) The impugned orders of the ASOs declining to accept the request of the Petitioners for recording of their names in the ROR in respect of the lands in question on the ground that the land belongs to the Government, are hereby set aside; (ii) The corresponding orders by the Appellate Authorities affirming such orders of the ASOs are also hereby set aside; (ill) A direction is issued to the ASOs to now proceed to record the names of the respective Petitioners concerning the land in question in their names in the ROR, in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks. (iv) Where the land in question stands recorded in the final published RoR in the name of the Government that entry will stand cancelled by virtue of this order and the Page 3 of 4 ASO will proceed to record it in favour of the respective Petitioners.” 8. It has been concluded in the decision (supra) that the ASOs were acting without jurisdiction beyond the scope of the powers under the OS&S Act with the conclusion that such powers which could have been exercised only under the OGLS Act has been sought to be exercised and the same is, hence, not permissible under law. 9. With the discussions as aforesaid, the Court reaches at a conclusion that the impugned orders under Annexures-5 and 6 are liable to be set aside with a direction to opposite party No.3 to consider the schedule land to be recorded in the name of the petitioner. 10. Hence, it is directed. 11. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned orders under Annexures-5 and 6 are set aside with a direction to opposite party No.3 to ensure schedule to be recorded the name of the petitioner concluding the exercise at the earliest preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge TUDU Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 20-Dec-2024 15:39:23 Page 4 of 4