Dismissed

Gee Bee Nirmana Company Pvt.Ltd. v. Tahasildar, Bbsr

Orissa HC18 Feb 2021WP(C)/8342/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directions for land measurement and police assistance after auction sale. Court observed land is under litigation and not yet mutated in petitioner's name. Petition disposed holding no further measurement direction needed as petitioner proceeds with mutation.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed with observation that Tahasildar shall do needful upon petitioner completing mutation case.

Gee Bee Nirmana Company Pvt.Ltd. Vs Tahasildar, Bbsr — Execution and Attachment | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 8342 of 2020

¶2

18.02.2021 Heard Mr. Gokulananda Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Amiya Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 through Virtual Mode.

¶3

This Writ Petition has been filed for a direction to the Opposite Party No.1-Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to take up measurement of the land in question and also for a direction to the Opposite Party No.2-Deputy Commissioner of Police, Laxmisagar, Bhubaneswar as well as I.I.C., Laxmisagar, P.S. Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.3 to render necessary Police Assistance to maintain law and order at the time of measurement of the land. The averments made in the Writ Petition reveal that the Petitioner was the highest bidder in auction of the land in question, i.e., Sabik Khata No.682, Sabik Plot Nos.441 and 1695 to an extent of Ac.0.390 decimals, which corresponds to Hal Khata No. 928/1497, Plot No.707, Hal Khata No.928/1122, Plot No. 708 and Hal Khata No.788, Plot No.2204 of mouzaJharapada in the district of Khordha (for short, ‘the case land’). The auction in C.P. Case No.211 of 1957 was conducted pursuant to the direction of High Court of Kolkata. Accordingly, a registered sale deed dated 08.02.2012 (Annexure-1) was executed in favour of the Petitioner. Subsequently, basing upon a requisition made by I.I.C., Laxmisagar Police Station as per the direction of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bhubaneswar in a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C., the Tahasildar,

¶4

¶5

Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.1 made an endeavour to demarcate the land. Thereafter, the Petitioner proceeded to construct a boundary wall around the case land, which was vehemently opposed by the boundary tenants including Deepak Jena and Sekhar Jena. As such, the Petitioner has filed another Demarcation Case No.1903 of 2012 on 22.03.2012. On receipt of the said demarcation case, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar directed the Revenue Inspector, Laxmisagar for measurement of the land. When the boundary tenants came to know about such direction of the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for measurement of the land, they initiated a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. Further, Prahallad Kumar Agrawal-Opposite Party No.4 and Satya Narayan Agrawal-Opposite Party No.5 filed a collusive suit in C.S. No.422 of 2008 against Opposite Party Nos.6 and 7 in respect of Hal Khata No.928/1497, Hal Plot No.707 measuring an area of Ac.0.98 decimals to prevent the Petitioner from enjoying the case land. It is his submission that after purchase of the case land in a Court auction, he has already filed a mutation case, which is pending, but the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar is not taking up the matter, which compelled the Petitioner to file a petition for demarcation of the case land. The Petitioner is not a party to the said suit. However, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar on the plea that the Civil Suit is pending in respect of the case land is not taking up the measurement of the land for which the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

¶6

¶7

Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 29.01.2021 has obtained written instruction from the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.1 vide Letter No. 2007 dated 17.02.2021, which reads as follows:

¶8

“To

¶9

The Advocate General, Odisha, Cuttack.

¶10

Sub: W.P.(C) No. 8342 of 2020 filed by Gee Bee Nirmana Company Pvt. Ltd. represented by its Director Sri Baldeodas Maloo –vrsTahasildar, Bhubaneswar & others.

¶11

Sir,

¶12

With reference to the subject cited above, I am to say that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for issue of appropriate direction to opposite parties for taking necessary steps to measure the schedule of land and Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 to give necessary protection to the petitioner and his person to remain over the schedule land since they are the owner in possession of the land and purchased the same from official liquidator as per Koklata High Court’s order as the petitioner is the highest bidder in C.P. No.211/1957 before the Hon’ble Koklata High Court in the liquidation proceeding.

¶13

That, the suit land relates to Mouza-Jharapada under sabik Khata No.682, Sabik Plot No.441 area Ac.0.390 dec. That, the sabik- hal correlation of suit land in given below:-

¶14

Mouza-Jharapada

¶15

¶16

Sabik Khata	Sabik Plot	Sabik R.T.	Hal Khata	Hal Plot	Hal R.T.
682	441	Basudev Santara, Brundaban S Santara, Chaitanya Santara S/o- Mayadhar Santara caste- Khandayat Vill-Nijigaon	928/1497	707	Prahalad Ku Agrawal & & another
	1695	-	788	2204	Sanatan Moharana & others

¶17

That, from the above land schedule it is seen that, the land in question does not stand recorded in favour of the petitioner nor the land is free from litigation. However, in the year 2012 one demarcation case was taken up after receipt of one requisition from I.I.C., Laxmisagar as per direction of Additional D.C.P., Bhubaneswar u/s Cr.P.C. 144, but could not be accomplished due to strong protest made by neighboring tenants at the time of demarcation.

¶18

In view of the above, demarcation of the suit land neither recorded in his name nor under his possession, is not possible due to highly disputed in nature. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.

¶19

I would therefore request you to please place the above fact before the Hon’ble Court for kind perusal & order.

¶20

Yours faithfully,

¶21

Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar ”

¶22

It is his submission that since the case land has not yet been recorded in the name of the Petitioner and the Petitioner is not in a possession over the said land, no measurement of the case land could be taken up. As such, the Petitioner should take step for recording of the case land in his name at the first instance before making any prayer for demarcation of the land in question.

¶23

¶24

Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the Parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the Petitioner has already filed the mutation case before the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, he will do the needful in the matter. Measurement of the case land being a part of the procedure while proceeding in the mutation case, no further direction for demarcation and measurement of the case land is necessary in the instant case.

¶25

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with an observation that it is open to the Petitioner to pursue the mutation case stated to have been filed before the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for recording of the case land in its name and in that event, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar will do the needful in accordance with law.

¶26

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.

¶27

..………………………….

¶28

bct

Gee Bee Nirmana Company Pvt.Ltd. v. Tahasildar, Bbsr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gee Bee Nirmana Company Pvt.Ltd. v. Tahasildar, Bbsr

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

Priyanka Samal Vs State of Odisha

Dinabandhu Patri Vs the Member Board of Revenue

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Manoj Kumar Jena

Dambarudhar Parida Vs State of Odisha

Khageswar Patra Vs State of Odisha

Dasarathi Behera Vs State of Odisha