Allowed

Rabindra Nayak@Rabindra Kumar v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC18 Dec 2024WP(C)/16671/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a settlement revision order directing settlement of land in the Government's name despite RoR standing in their favour. Holding tenancy prima facie proved from the Ex-intermediary and continued post-vesting, the High Court quashed the revision order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Annexure-7 order in Settlement Revision Petition No.41 of 2005 set aside; writ petition allowed.

Rabindra Nayak@Rabindra Kumar Vs State of Odisha — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.16671 of 2015

¶3

Rabindra Nayak @ Rabindra Kumar …. Petitioners Nayak and others

¶4

Mr. S. Dash, Advocate

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and another

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr. P.K. Mohanty, ASC Mr. H.N. Mohapatra, Advocate for O.P. No.2

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

Order No.

18.12.2024

Heard Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and Mr. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State opposite party No.1.

¶16

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned order dated 19^th June, 2015 under Annexure-7 passed in connection with Settlement Revision Petition No.41 of 2005 dated 19^th June, 2015 on the grounds stated therein.

¶17

Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land stands recorded with the petitioners as per Annexure-2 as it was received from the Ex-intermediary on the strength of Annexure1 and refers to Annexure-3 with regard to receipt of rent from him as a tenant prior to the vesting. It is further submitted that the petitioners have been treated as tenants post-vesting and was issued with the Hal RoR i.e. Annexure-2 and long thereafter, at the instance of opposite party No.2, a suit was instituted in CS No.37 of 2005, wherein, injunction was refused and the same was challenged

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

in FAO No.29/72 of 2005 and it was dismissed. It is further submitted by Mr. Dash, learned counsel that after the interim order was refused in the suit, opposite party No.2 approached the learned Commissioner, Consolidation, Odisha and filed the revision which has led to the passing of the impugned order as at Annexure-7. The contention is that the record of right has been unsettled long after which is again at the instance of opposite party No.2, who does not have any locus standi as he claimed for settlement of the schedule land in his favour, or else, with the State. Referring to Annexure-4, Mr. Dash lastly submits that the petitioners are accepted as tenants under the Government and hence, was issued with Annexure-2 and therefore, the decision under Annexure-7 is liable to the interfered with and set aside.

¶20

Mr. Moahaptra, learned counsel for opposite party No.2, however, submits that such recording in favour of the petitioners with issuance of Hal RoR as at Annexure-2 has been revoked by the order under Annexure-7 and duly so and for the reasons stated therein. It is submitted that no copy of tenancy ledger was filed for reference and that apart, the petitioners failed to prove flow of title in their favour from the Ex-intermediary.

¶21

Mr. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State justifies the impugned order under Annexure-7 by claiming that in absence of any proof of flow of title and reference to any tenancy ledger vis-àvis the petitioners, the impugned order under Annexure-7 has been passed, which is as per and in accordance with law. At the same time, Mr. Mohanty requests for more time to file a counter.

¶22

Considering the delay, which has already taken place, as the matter is pending since 2015 and heard in detail and at length, the

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

Court is not inclined to allow further time for the State to file a reply and hence, it is disposed of by the following order.

¶25

Admittedly, opposite party No.2 instituted the suit in CS No.37 of 2005, which was dismissed for default by order dated 19^th April, 2007 as at Annexure-6. It is further made to appear from Annexures-4 and 5 that in the said suit, opposite party No.2 requested for an order of injunction and the same was refused in IA No.31 of 2005 and ultimately, confirmed in FAO No.29/72 of 2005. The RoR stands in the name of petitioners. The claim and source of title is based on Annexure-1 executed by an Exintermediary. Since, RoR i.e. Annexure-2 is in favour of the petitioners, it is pre-supposed that there was tenancy under the Exintermediary and by deeming fiction have been so treated under the Government in view of Section 8(1) of the OEA Act in absence of any materials shown and proved to the contrary.

¶26

That apart, the Court finds that such tenancy has been challenged by opposite party No.2 in the year 2005, which according to Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioners, to be time barred. The revision under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act, 1958 has been entertained in 2015 again at the behest of opposite party No.2 which has, however, led to passing of an order with regard to the plots under Hal Khata No.23. In fact, vide Annexure-7, a direction has been issued to settle the plots under Khata No.23 in the name of the Government.

¶27

Considering the facts pleaded on record and Annexure-1 besides Annexure-2, the fact that after a considerable period of time, the challenge is at the instance of opposite party No.2 and such settlement has been over turned vide Annexure-7, the Court is of the view that tenancy having been prima facie proved and on the

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

basis of the tenancy from the time of Ex-intermediary and the petitioners having been accepted and issued with the RoR i.e. Annexure-2 post-vesting, the learned Commissioner Consolidation, Odisha could not have unsettled it vide Annexure-7 which is, therefore, liable to be interfered with and quashed.

¶30

Hence, it is ordered.

¶31

In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order under Annexure-7 passed in connection with Settlement Revision Petition No.41 of 2005 by learned Commissioner, Consolidation, Odisha is hereby set aside.

¶32

Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

(R.K. Pattanaik)

Judge

TUDU

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 19-Dec-2024 12:24:35

¶38

Page 4 of 4

Rabindra Nayak@Rabindra Kumar v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rabindra Nayak@Rabindra Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sisir Ku.Behera Vs State

Pushpa Devi Agrawal Vs the State of Odisha

Jairam Agarwalla Vs State

Krushna Chandra Majhi Vs Commissioner -Cum-Secretary to Govt.,Panchayati Raj

Bimal Kumar Agarwal Vs State of Odisha

Subash Swabi Vs State of Odisha