This court dismissed a writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an order dated 23 May 2007. The court found no merit in the petitioner's claim of title based on long possession, noting a lack of documentary proof and reliance on valid registered sale deeds. The petition to set aside the impugned order was rejected.
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 W.P.(C) NO. 7337 OF 2008
Fakir Jena and others
…. Petitioners
Mr. Sambit Rath, Advocate
-versus-
Joint Commissioner, Settlement and …. Opp. Parties Consolidation, Balasore and others
Mr. Dillip Kumar Mishra, Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
19.05.2022
W.P.(C) NO. 7337 OF 2008 & I.A. No. 10076 of 2020
“Postal requisites for issue of notice be filed by 12th December, 2008 as undertaken, failing which the writ petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to Bench.”
Page 1 of 4
// 2 //
notice on the private Opposite Parties. It is ascertained from the record that the writ petition was filed on 14th May, 2008 and in the meantime, fourteen years have already elapsed. In order to entertain prayer made by the Petitioners, this Court requested the learned counsel for the parties to argue the matter on merit to which they agree.
Page 2 of 4
// 3 //
learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhadrak in C.S. No. 275 of 2005-I for permanent injunction. In the said suit, I.A. No.335 of 2005 was filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. in which learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhadrak finding a prima facie case in favour of the present Petitioners directed both the parties to maintain status quo over the suit property. These material aspects were not taken into consideration by the revisional court while passing the impugned order. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-3 and to remit the matter back to the Joint Commissioner for fresh consideration of the revision petition giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
Page 3 of 4
// 4 //
bks
On the other hand, the Opposite Party Nos.2 to 7 claim title over the same by virtue of two registered sale deeds vide RSD No.152 dated 4th February, 1941 and RSD No.2276 dated 1st December, 1943 respectively executed by the sabik recorded tenants. The order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhadrak under Annexure-4 relied upon by the Petitioners does not discloses that the Petitioners are in possession over the land in question. There is no material on record to show that the Petitioners are in possession over the land in question. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order under Annexure-3. Accordingly, this writ petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order dismissing the revision petition requires setting aside and remitting the matter to the Joint Commissioner for fresh consideration?
Whether the civil court's interim order maintaining status quo defeats the revisional court's finding against the petitioner's possession?
Fakir Jena and others
Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Balasore
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
