Disposed

M.Madhusudan Rao v. Manas Ranjan Hota

Orissa HC7 Aug 2018WP(C)/14187/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge disposed of a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a consolidation revision due to lapsed time. The court held the order for dismissal but granted liberty to the petitioners to move the civil court to establish their title based on a registered sale deed.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; liberty granted to move civil court to establish title based on registered sale deed.

M.Madhusudan Rao Vs Manas Ranjan Hota — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2018)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.14187 of 2007

¶2

07.08.2018

¶3

This writ application has been filed with a prayer to quash an order dated 20.08.2007 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement, Sambalpur in Consolidation Revision No.1165 of 2006.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

¶5

Perused the order impugned.

¶6

The petitioners had filed the above revision under section 37(1) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 with a prayer for recording their names along with other recorded tenants in respect of the land under Khata No.363 assigned with Chaka No.86 of Mouza-Salana. Their claim is based on the purchase of some land from opposite party no.1, who happens to be a co-sharer with other opposite parties in respect of those lands by registered sale deed no.725 of the year 2005.

¶7

Perusal of the order reveals that the notification under section 41 of the OCH&PFL Act in respect of the said village had been published in the year 1986. The transaction, which is projected at the basis of the claim of the petitioners is of the year 2005 and their claim is that in view of the said purchase they have stepped into the shoes of their vendor insofar as his interest in those lands is concerned. The Joint Commissioner has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the claim of the petitioners. The revision has been dismissed as not maintainable in view of the lapse of long period since the time of closure notification under section 41 of the OCH&PFL Act and the institution of the revision as also the transaction in question.

¶8

During course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have the remedy of moving the Civil Court for declaring their right, title and interest as also possession in view of their purchase of the land in the year 2005 by registered sale deed from opposite party no.1 and if so necessary to make a prayer passing a preliminary decree for partition for allotment of their purchase land in the share of their vendor and accordingly to get the same adjusted. He, therefore, prays for disposal of this writ application with necessary liberty as above in order to safeguard the rights of the petitioners.

¶9

Learned counsel for the opposite parties do not have any objection in the matter.

¶10

Considering the submissions made and without interfering with the impugned order, this writ application is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to move the competent civil court in the matter of establishment of their right, title, interest and possession on the basis of registered sale deed no.725 of the year 2005 insofar as their purchased land are concerned.

¶11

Accordingly, the writ application is disposed of.

¶12

D. Dash, J.

¶13

M.Madhusudan Rao v. Manas Ranjan Hota

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Madhusudan Rao v. Manas Ranjan Hota

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Musa Gouda@Sankar Vs State of Odisha

Dinesh Kumar Agarwal Vs State of Odisha

Niranjan Swain Vs Sachindananda Samal

Namita Das Vs State of Orissa

Gopala Senapati Vs State of Odisha

Kuni Vs Ramgopal