Allowed

Prativa Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC18 Dec 2020WP(C)/16933/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition holding that orders recalling a previous settlement and recording land as revenue land without issuing prior notice violated natural justice. The lower appellate order was also found deficient for ignoring relevant documents. The court quashed both orders and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication with a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 30.07.2014 and 21.01.2020 quashed and set aside; matter remitted to Tahasildar for fresh adjudication with opportunity of hearing.

Prativa Mohanty Vs State of Odisha — Landlord and Tenant | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 16933 of 2020

¶2

18.12.2020 Due to outbreak of COVID-19, this matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶3

Heard Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties.

¶4

The petitioners in this writ petition pray for a direction to set aside the order dated 30.07.2014 (Annexure-7) passed by the Tahasildar & Revenue Officer, Deogarh in Bebandabasta Case No.1 of 2019 as well as the order dated 21.01.2020 (Annexure-9) passed by the Sub-Collector, Deogarh-opposite party No.3 in Bebandabasta Appeal No.6 of 2019.

¶5

Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land in question was originally recorded in the name of Smt. Tikenini Kamal Kumari Devi wife of Lambodar Deb. Due to her legal necessity, she executed two sale deeds in favour of the predecessors of the petitioners, namely late Bhabagrahi Nanda vide Registered Sale Deed Nos.9 and 10 dated 15.01.1965 (Annexure-2) and delivered possession. Since then, the predecessors of petitioners and after them, the petitioners are in peaceful possession over the same. During settlement operation, the petitioners could not take appropriate steps to record the land in their favour. Accordingly,

¶6

¶7

the land in question was recorded in Bebandabasta Khata under Annexure-3 series. However, pursuant to the notification dated 57677/R dated 06.12.2000 (Annexure-4) issued by the Revenue Department, Government of Odisha, the petitioners made an application to the Collector, Deogarh-opposite party No.2 to lease out the land in their favour under Rayati Status. On consideration of the application, the Collector, Deogarh-opposite party No.2 directed the Tahasildar, Sadar, Deogarh-opposite party No.4 to do the needful. Accordingly, the Tahasildar, Sadar, Deogarh-opposite party No.4 initiated Bebandabasta Case No.1 of 2009 on his file and following due procedure of law vide his order dated 29.06.2011 directed as under:

¶8

“The parties/claimants are in peaceful physical possession of the following lands mentioned below that they are entitled to be settled for the same in Rayati status. Thus the claim of the petitioners is allowed with a direction to deposit the Salami and back rent as per the land schedule and calculation made therefore with the R.I. Deogarh.”

¶9

Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioners deposited the Salami and back rent on 06.07.2011. While the matter stood thus, the Tahasildar, and Revenue Officer, Deogarh, most surprisingly, without issuing any notice to the

¶10

¶11

petitioners and without following due procedure of law vide his order 30.07.2014 directed to record the land in the name of Revenue and Disaster Management Department and sent the case record for correction of the R.O.R. accordingly. Since the petitioners were not aware of the said order, they could not file an appeal within the stipulated period. When they come to know that the land has been directed to be recorded in the name of the Government in the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, they preferred Bebandabasta Appeal No.6 of 2019, which was dismissed both on the grounds of limitation as well as merit vide order dated 21.01.2020. Hence, the petitioners have filed this appeal.

¶12

Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tahasildar, Deogarh-opposite party No.4 has no jurisdiction to sit over his own order and recall it, when it is no more available to be recalled as it has already been complied with. He further submits that before passing the order dated 30.07.2014, the Tahasildar and Revenue Officer, Deogarh should have issued notice to the petitioners, who are in physical possession over the said land and has complied with his earlier direction of the Tahasildar, Deogarh dated 29.06.2011 by depositing the Salami and back rent. He further submits that the Tahasildar, Deogarh-opposite party No.4 has not assigned any reason which

¶13

¶14

occasioned in recalling the said order. Further, the Sub-Collector, Deogarh-opposite party No.3 while considering the appeal failed to appreciate that the order impugned before him was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, for which the delay in filing the appeal had occurred . Further, the flow of title to the petitioners from the recorded tenant has been well established on the document filed by the petitioners and considering the same, the Tahasildar, Deogarh vide his order dated 29.06.2011 directed settlement of the land in question in favour of the petitioners. In that view of the matter, he submits that the impugned order suffers from illegality, material irregularity as well as gross violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, he prays for setting aside the impugned order and to direct the Tahasildar, Sadar, Deogarh-opposite party No.4 to issue Record of Right in their favour.

¶15

Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submits that the opening paragraph of order dated 30.07.2014 passed by the Tahasildar, Sadar, Deogarh-opposite party No.4 clearly discloses that general as well as individual notices were sent to the petitioners before passing the impugned order. The Tahasildar, Deogarh-opposite party No.4 has no jurisdiction to settle the land in favour of the petitioners. Hence, there is no illegality

¶16

¶17

either in order dated 30.07.2014 or the order passed by the Sub-Collector, Deogarh-opposite party No.3 dated 21.01.2020 in Bebandabasta Appeal No.6 of 2019. He therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. It appears that pursuant to the order dated 29.06.2011 passed in Bebandabasta Case No.1 of 2009, the Tahasildar, Deogarh-opposite party No.4 had directed the petitioners to deposit Salami as well as back rent for leasing out the land in their favour. Accordingly, the petitioners have also deposited the same on 06.07.2011. Thus, there is no lacuna on the part of the petitioners in complying with the direction dated 29.06.2011. On perusal of order dated 30.07.2014, it is not clear as to what occasioned the Tahasildar and Revenue Officer, Deogarh to recall his own order and direct the land to be recorded in the name of the Revenue and Disaster Management Department. Although he has recorded a reason that the guidelines in notification No.EA-16/2000/57677/R dated 6^th December, 2000 issued by the Revenue Department of Government of Odisha, the claimants failed to give cogent evidence for entire chronology of succession, but on perusal of order dated 29.06.2011, it appears that the Tahasildar, Deogarh-opposite party No.4 has

¶19

¶20

passed a detailed order taking into consideration the materials available on record, more particularly the aforesaid notification and recorded his satisfaction to lease out the land question in favour of the petitioners and accordingly directed the petitioners to deposit Salami as well as back rent.

¶21

Be that as it may, the petitioners ought to have been given an opportunity to putforth their case before order dated 30.07.2014 was passed which appears to have been not followed. Further, the Sub-Collector, Deogarh-opposite party No.3 also committed illegality in not referring and discussing the documents available on record as well as the reason assigned by the Tahasildar, Deogarh in his order dated 29.06.2011.

¶22

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tahasildar, Sadar, Deogarh-opposite party No.4 is required to consider the matter afresh. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 30.07.2014 under Annexure-7 as well as order dated 10.09.2019 under Annexure-9 are quashed and set aside the matter is remitted back to the Tahasildar, Sadar, Deogarh-opposite party No.4 for fresh adjudication giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners to putforth their case. In order to avoid further delay in the matter, the petitioners are directed to appear before the Tahasildar, Sadar, Deogarhopposite party No.4 on 18.01.2021 along with an

¶23

¶24

authenticated copy of this order to receive further instruction in the matter. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.

¶25

Authenticated copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Court shall be treated at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed in this Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.

¶26

.…………………………. K.R. Mohapatra, J.

¶27

bct

Prativa Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prativa Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit Ganga Deb Vs Collector,Deogarh

Lakshmidhar Mishra Vs Sushanta Kumar Panigrahi

Smt. Anupama Kar @ Panda Vs Sabitri Panda @ Acharya

Gayadhar Biswal Vs the State of Odisha

Abhiram Mahanty Vs the State of Odisha

Laxmi Behera Vs Collector,Angul