Allowed

Narendra Nath @ Narendra Kumar Sahoo v. Babaji Charan Behera

Orissa HC27 Jul 2021WP(C)/3125/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order by the Tahasildar, Mahanga, that set aside land consolidation records. The court held the tahasildar lacked jurisdiction because the consolidation records were published in 2000, rendering the 2008 order beyond the law's time limit. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 29.06.2010 passed by the Tahasildar, Mahanga is set aside, and any action taken thereunder is also set aside.

Narendra Nath @ Narendra Kumar Sahoo Vs Babaji Charan Behera — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 3125 OF 2021 Narendra Nath @ Narendra Kumar …. Petitioners Sahoo & others Mr. D.P. Mohanty, Advocate

¶3

-versus-

¶4

…. Babaji Charan Behera & another Opp. Parties

¶5

Mr. Brahmananda Das, Advocate (For Opposite Party No. 1) Mr. Dillip Kumar Mishra, Additional Government Advocate (For Opposite Party No.2) CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA ORDER 27.07.2021

¶6

Order No.

¶7

¶8

This matter is taken up through video conferencing mode.

¶9

The Petitioners in this writ petition seek to assail the order dated 29.06.2010 (Annexure-9) passed by the Tahasildar, Mahanga-Opposite Party No.2 in OLR Misc. Case No. 261 of 2008.

¶10

The contention of Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioners is that the consolidation R.O.Rs. under Annexures-3 and 4 in respect of the land in question have been published in the year 2000 in the name of the Petitioners in his marfatdari as well as personal capacity respectively. Thus, the Tahasildar, Mahanga-Opposite Party No.2 had no jurisdiction to entertain the said OLR misc. case and pass an order setting aside the

¶11

Page 1 of 1

¶12

// 2 //

¶13

consolidation R.O.Rs. It is further contended that no notice of the said OLR misc. case was ever served on the Petitioners. The provision of law under which such an application was entertained is also not mentioned either in the petition (Annexure-7) filed by the Opposite Party No.1 or in the impugned order. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-9.

¶14

Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1, vehemently objected to the submission of Mr. Mohanty and submitted that the consolidation R.O.Rs. under Annexures-3 and 4 were obtained by practising fraud and as such, he made an application to the Tahasildar, Mahanga-Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-7, which was entertained and OLR Misc. Case No.261 of 2008 was initiated on the file of Tahasildar, Mahanga and the impugned order has been passed. He also prays for some time to file counter affidavit to explain the fraud committed by the Petitioners in obtaining the consolidation R.O.Rs. under Annexures-3 and 4.

¶15

Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State submitted that from the impugned order under Annexure-9, it is not clear under which provision of law such an order was passed. He, however, submitted that the Tahasildar, Mahanga could not have set aside the consolidation R.O.Rs. published under the provisions of O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act, 1972 (for short, ‘the Act’).

¶16

Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the issue to be decided in this case,

¶17

Page 2 of 4

¶18

// 3 //

¶19

this Court feels that no purpose will be served by adjourning the matter by granting time to the Opposite Party No.1 to file counter affidavit explaining the fraud, if any, committed by the Petitioners in obtaining the consolidation R.O.Rs. under Annexures -3 and 4, as alleged.

¶20

There is no dispute to the fact that the consolidation R.O.Rs. under Annexures-3 and 4 were published on 20^th July, 2000. As such, the Tahasildar, Mahanga had no jurisdiction to initiate OLR Misc. Case No. 261 of 2008 entertaining a grievance petition of the Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-7 and set aside the consolidation R.O.Rs. published under the Act. On close scrutiny of the petition under Annexure-7 as well as impugned order passed under Annexure-9, it is not clear under which provision of law such an application was filed and the impugned order was passed. It is also not clear how the Tahasildar, Mahanga assumed jurisdiction to entertain such an application. Although the impugned order was passed in the year, 2010, but on perusal of the impugned order, it does not appear that the Petitioners were served with the notice of the said petition. In paragraph-11 of the writ petition, the Petitioner categorically stated that he was regularly paying land revenue in respect of the land in question till 2019. Due to pandemic of Covid-19, he could pay the land revenue for the year 2020 in time. But, during last part of the year 2020, when he offered payment of land revenue, the same was not accepted. On enquiry, he came to know about the impugned order and filed this writ petition.

Page 3 of 4

// 4 //

bks

In that view of the matter, the impugned order under Annexure-9 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the same is set aside. Any action taken and order passed or R.O.Rs. published in pursuance thereof are also set aside accordingly.

¶25

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶26

As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25^th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice

¶27

No.4798, dated 15^th April, 2021.

¶28

(K.R.Mohapatra)

¶29

Judge

¶30

Page 4 of 4

Narendra Nath @ Narendra Kumar Sahoo v. Babaji Charan Behera

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Nath @ Narendra Kumar Sahoo v. Babaji Charan Behera

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

Narendra Kumar Nayak Vs Tahasildar, Kendrapara

Golap Ghadei Vs Maguni Charan Kamala

Pinakshi Sahoo Vs Baijayanti Sahoo

Abdul Gaffer Vs State

Sukanti Maharana Vs Collector, Koraput

Rupakanta Sahu Vs Basanta Manjari Samal