Remanded

Suresh Ch.Panda v. State

Orissa HC8 May 2024WP(C)/5861/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court remanded Bebandobasta cases to the Tahasildar for fresh adjudication after finding ambiguity in land identification and lack of hearing opportunities. The impugned orders were set aside, directing the authority to re-decide the matters within six months after granting due notice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; matter remanded to Tahasildar for fresh adjudication within six months.

Suresh Ch.Panda Vs State — Landlord and Tenant | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos.5861 of 2011 and 14671, 14672 & 14673 of 2008

¶2

In W.P.(C) No.5861 of 2011

¶3

Suresh Chandra Panda

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty, Sr. Advocate Mr. S.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate -versus-

¶6

State of Odisha, represented through the Collector, Sundargarh and Another

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr. S.P. Panda, Additional Government Advocate

¶9

In W.P.(C) No.14671 of 2008

¶10

Rama Raghav Das (since dead) through his LRs. Sipra Das and Another

¶11

Petitioners

¶12

Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty, Sr. Advocate Mr. S.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate

¶13

-versus-

¶14

State of Odisha, represented through its Secretary, Revenue Department and Others

¶15

…. Opposite Parties

¶16

Mr. S.P. Panda, Additional Government Advocate

¶17

In W.P.(C) No.14672 of 2008

¶18

Smt. Uma Das (since dead) through her LRs and Others

¶19

…. Petitioners

¶20

Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty, Sr. Advocate Mr. S.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate

¶21

-versus-

¶22

State of Odisha, represented through its Secretary, Revenue Department and Others

¶23

…. Opposite Parties

¶24

Mr. S.P. Panda, Additional Government Advocate

¶25

W.P.(C) Nos.5861 of 2011, 14671, 14672 & 14673 of 2008

¶26

Page 1 of 6

¶27

In W.P.(C) No.14673 of 2008

¶28

Smt. Uma Das (since dead) through her LRs and Others …. Petitioners

¶29

Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty, Sr. Advocate Mr. S.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate

¶30

-versus-

¶31

State of Odisha, represented through its Secretary, Revenue Department and Others

¶32

…. Opposite Parties

¶33

Mr. S.P. Panda, Additional Government Advocate

¶34

CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

ORDER

8.5.2024

Order No.

39. 1. The orders passed in different Bebandobasta cases by the

¶39

Tahasildar, Rourkela are under challenge in present writ petitions.

¶40

The issues involved in these writ petitions are inter-connected

¶41

and since all the petitioners derive their claim from the order passed in OEA Case No. 6/5 of 1966-67, these writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

¶42

Originally one Rajiv Panda was in possession of the entire property in the status of ‘Brahmottar Mafi’ as the ex-intermediary. OEA Case No.6/5 of 1966-67 was filed by Sudarsan Panda, the son of Rajiv Panda, consequent upon issuance of notification dated 28^th May,

¶43

W.P.(C) Nos.5861 of 2011, 14671, 14672 & 14673 of 2008

¶44

Page 2 of 6

¶45

1965 vesting the entire property with the State Government. Said Sudarsan panda is the grandfather of present Petitioner in WP(C) No.5861 of 2011. By order dated 30^th December, 1972 the OEA Collector-cum-Tahasildar, Panposh directed to settle the land in question in favour of Sudarsan Panda and other respective purchasers with assessment of fair and equitable rent. Accordingly the RoR was prepared.

¶46

Subsequently, Bebandobasta Case No.17/1985 (in respect of WP(C) No.5861 of 2011), Bebandobasta Case No.20/1985 (in respect of WP(C) No.14671 of 20008), Bebandobasta Case No.13/1985 (in respect of WP(C) No.14672 of 20008) and Bebandobasta Case No.12/1985 (in respect of WP(C) No.14673 of 20008) were initiated suo motu by the Tahasildar and the lands were recorded in Government Anabadi Khata. Said orders passed in those Bebandobasta cases are the subject matter of challenge before this court.

¶47

It needs to be mentioned here that the original Petitioner in WP(C) No.14671 of 2008 purchased the land from one Ranjit Basu who purchased the same land from Sudarsan Panda. Similarly, the predecessor in interest of original Petitioners in WP(C) Nos.14672 and 14673 of 2008 purchased the land from Sudarsan Panda. All the

¶48

W.P.(C) Nos.5861 of 2011, 14671, 14672 & 14673 of 2008

¶49

Page 3 of 6

¶50

Petitioners derive their right from the settlement order dated 30^th December, 1972 passed in favour of Sudarsan Panda.

¶51

It is seen from the order dated 30^th December, 1972 of the OEA Collector that an area of Ac.0.300 dec. was under possession of the Mafidar Sudarsan Panda and the same was settled in his favour in Rayati status. Accordingly by virtue of the settlement order, the RoR was published in Bebandobasta status.

¶52

The case lands in all the writ petitions correspond to different Hal Khata of Sabik Mouza Raghunathpali. Plot No.320/1114 measuring Ac.0.110 dec and Plot No.299 measuring Ac.0.300 dec were subject matter of dispute in Bebandobasta Case No.17/1985, Plot No.212/324 measuring Ac.0.190 dec under Khata No.53 is the subject matter of dispute in Bebandobasta Case No.20/1985, Plot Nos.291, 292, 293 and 297, measuring Ac.0.715 dec in Khata No.403 is subject matter of dispute in Bebandobasta Case No.13/1985, and Plot No.212/338 measuring Ac.0.153 dec under Khata No.51 is subject matter of dispute in Bebandobasta Case No.12/1985.

¶53

The common case of the Petitioners is that they have not been

¶54

given due opportunity of hearing in the Bebandobasta cases and the

¶55

W.P.(C) Nos.5861 of 2011, 14671, 14672 & 14673 of 2008

¶56

Page 4 of 6

¶57

impugned orders have been passed without hearing them. Conversely, the State has disputed identification of the property and according to it

¶58

those Sabik plots do not correspond to Hal Khata No.418 and the land belonging to Sudarsan Panda as per order of the OEA Collector has been left unaffected.

¶59

On perusal of record, lot of ambiguity appears in respect of identification of lands corresponding to Hal Plots. The Petitioners in WP(C) No.14671, 14672 and 14673 of 2008 have not clarified their respective lands in Hal plots nor corresponding Sabik-Hal plot details are stated clearly. The impugned orders under Annexure-1 to respective writ petitions do not disclose opportunity of hearing granted to the Petitioners. So when the Petitioners claim that they were not granted due opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned orders, and it appears from the record that there is ambiguity in identification of the case lands in respect of corresponding Sabik and Hal plots, in order to determine whether the lands as per the direction of OEA Collector dated 30^th December, 1972 has been left unaffected

¶60

in favour of Sudarsan Panda, it is felt apt to remand the matter to the authority for fresh adjudication. Accordingly the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are sent back to the Tahasildar, Rourkela with

¶61

W.P.(C) Nos.5861 of 2011, 14671, 14672 & 14673 of 2008

¶62

Page 5 of 6

¶63

a direction to decide Bebandobasta Cases No. 17/1985, 20/1985,

¶64

13/1985 and 12/1985 afresh after granting due opportunity of hearing

¶65

to all the parties concerned. It is further observed that the Petitioners may appear before the Tahasildar on any working day along with a certified copy of this order and the Tahasildar shall do well to dispose of the cases in accordance with law within a period of six months from said date, uninfluenced by any such observation made in this order.

¶66

With aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petitions are disposed of.

¶67

( B.P. Routray) Judge

¶68

M.K. Panda/P.A

¶69

Signature Not Verified

¶70

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 09-May-2024 16:06:45

¶71

W.P.(C) Nos.5861 of 2011, 14671, 14672 & 14673 of 2008

¶72

Page 6 of 6

Suresh Ch.Panda v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Ch.Panda v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sundari Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Thd Divl. Manager, M/S. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gita Malik

The Manager, Legal, Cholamandalam Ms G.I.Co. Ltd. Vs Santosh Beura

Uma Das Vs State

Rama Raghav Das Vs State

Sakeri Krushnamurtti Vs Addl. Commissioner of Settlement and Consolidation,Ganjam