In this writ petition, the High Court of Orissa had to decide whether to set aside orders dismissing a claim for land title. The court held that the authorities were correct in excluding the petitioners based on lack of title proof and admitted possession by respondents under a 1953 deed.
Writ petition dismissed; no order as to cost.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
O.J.C .No. 1520 OF 1995
Abdul Gaffar Khan (since dead, his …. Petitioners legal heirs) Manima Bibi & others
Mr. N.P. Parija, Advocate
-versus-
…. State of Orissa & others Opp. Parties Mr. S.K. Dwibedi, Advocate (For Opposite Party Nos. 5 to 11) Mr. Dillip Kumar Mishra, Additional Government Advocate (For Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 4)
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 27.07.2021
Page 1 of 2
// 2 //
short, ‘the Act’) contending that in 1930 settlement, the land in question was recorded in the name of the ancestors of the Petitioners. In Hal settlement of 1981, the land in question was recorded in the name of Gunanidhi Behera and others for which they filed objection case. It was their case that the land was never sold to the predecessors in interest of contesting Opposite Party Nos.5 to 11 by Registered Sale Deed No. 6044 dated 09.12.1953 by Kuanar Khan as alleged. As such, the land should be recorded in their name.
Page 2 of 6
// 3 //
purchased the suit land in an auction sale. Since the y failed to produce any document in support of their case, the land in question should not have been recorded in their names. He further submitted that in order to assert their title, the predecessor of the Petitioners had also filed Civil Suit No.16 of 1984, which was abated due to commencement of the consolidation operation. Thus, the predecessor of the Petitioners was diligent about his title. It is his contention that the appellate court as well as revisional court also committed gross illegality in holding that the predecessors of the contesting Opposite Party Nos. 5 to 11 have acquired right by adverse possession, which is case of neither of the parties. Since the R.O.R of 1930 stands in the name of the predecessors of Petitioners and the predecessors of contesting Opposite Party Nos.5 to 11 failed to establish their flow of title, the Consolidation Authorities have committed gross error in rejecting the claim of the Petitioners. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and a direction should be issued to record the land in question in the name of the Petitioners.
Page 3 of 6
// 4 //
was also published in their name. They are in possession over the suit property althroughout and are paying the land revenue till date. As such, the Petitioners have no semblance of right, title and interest over the suit property. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
Page 4 of 6
// 5 //
Although objector-Abdul Guffar Khan had deposed before the Consolidation Officer that his father and co-sharers had never transferred the suit land to anyone, but he categorically admitted that they are not in possession over the suit land and are not paying land revenue in respect of the same. It is also admitted that they have no document to prove title except the R.O.R. of 1930 settlement. It is also deposed that the suit land is in possession of the Opposite Parties to the said objection case (predecessors of the contesting Opposite Parties). It is also admitted by them that in the last settlement of 1981, the suit land was recorded in the name of Gunanidhi Behera and others in the settlement R.O.R.
Page 5 of 6
// 6 //
jm
Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed, but in the circumstances there shall be no order as to cost.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
Page 6 of 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the decisions of consolidation authorities which dismissed the petitioners' claim to land title based on a 1930 settlement but acknowledged a 1953 register
Whether the petitioners proved their title over the suit land despite the existence of a registered sale deed and public record of rights in favour of the respondents.
Abdul Gaffar Khan (since dead, his legal heirs)
Manima Bibi & others
State of Orissa
Gunanidhi Behera and others
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
