Ashish Ku.Sahu Vs Kantha Suna

ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

C.R.P. No.17 of 2009

In the matter of an Application under Section 13(3)(a) of the Odisha Merged Territories (Village Offices Abolition) Act, 1963 (Act 10 of 1963)

¶4

¶5

1. Ashish Kumar Sahu Aged about 25 years Son of Late Jayakrushna Sahu At/P.O.: Baidyanath P.S./District: Subarnapur.

¶6

2. Sashibhusan Sahu Aged about 45 years Son of Late Nakula Sahu At/P.O.: Baidyanath District: Subarnapur.

¶7

3. Smt. Amulya Sahu Aged about 25 years Wife of Dhruba Sahu Daughter of Late Nakula Sahu At: Kantara, P.O.: Bounsuni P.S.: Binka, District: Subarnapur.

¶8

4. Smt. Sanjukta Sahu Aged about 41 years Wife of Basanta Kumar Sahu Daughter of Late Nakula Sahu At: Khambeswarpali P.S./District: Subarnapur. … Petitioners

¶9

-VERSUS-

¶10

C.R.P. No.17 of 2009

¶11

Page 1 of 25

¶12

1. Kantha Suna Aged about 5 years Son of Kamali Suna.

¶13

2. Taruna Luha Aged about 55 years Son of Kandu Luha.

¶14

3. Madha Luha Aged about 55 years Son of Raja Luha.

¶15

4. Baruna Luha Aged about 58 years Son of Kandu Luha.

¶16

5. Krushna Suna Aged about 44 years Son of Kamali Suna.

¶17

6. Bishnu Luha Aged about 56 years Son of Bhaba Luha.

¶18

7. Jagat Luha Aged about 48 years Son of Betikhi Luha.

¶19

8. Kameswar Luha Aged about 38 years Son of Bishnu Luha.

¶20

9. Giri Tandi Aged about 58 years Son of Khutu Tandi.

¶21

C.R.P. No.17 of 2009

¶22

Page 2 of 25

¶23

10. Srikar Luha Aged about 41 years Son of Phaguna Luha.

¶24

11. Upendra Barik Aged about 53 years Son of Jagabandhu Barik.

¶25

12. Jharia Badamali Aged about 45 years Son of Jaya Mangal Badamali.

¶26

All are of village/P.O.: Baidyanathpur P.S./ District: Subarnapur.

¶27

13. Bhagaban Behera, (dead)

¶28

(a) Janaki Behera

¶29

Aged about 45 years Daughter of Late Bhagaban Behera.

¶30

(b) Kaikaya Behera Aged about 40 years Daughter of Late Bhagaban Behera.

¶31

(c) Kousalya Behera Aged about 32 years Daughter of Late Bhagaban Behera.

¶32

(d) Menaka Behera Aged about 27 years Daughter of Late Bhagaban Behera

¶33

All are of Village: Khameswari Palli P.S.: Sonepur, District: Subarnapur.

¶34

14. Brundaban Sethi, (dead)

¶35

C.R.P. No.17 of 2009

¶36

Page 3 of 25

¶37

(a) Chaitanya Sethi Aged about 80 years Son of Late Brundaban Sethi Village: Khameswari Palli P.S.: Sonepur, District: Subarnapur.

¶38

15. Madan Rout, (dead)

¶39

(a) Khamar Rout Aged about 50 years Son of Late Madan Rout Village: Khameswari Palli P.S.: Sonepur District: Subarnapur.

¶40

16. Ani Sahu Son of Krushna Sahu

¶41

17. Buguru Bagh, (dead)

¶42

(a) Sumit Bagh Aged about 44 years Daughter of Late Buguru Bagh.

¶43

(b) Kumit Bagh Aged about 40 years Daughter of Late Buguru Bagh

¶44

Both are of Village Khameswari Palli P.S.: Sonepur, District: Subarnapur.

¶45

18. Tahasildar, Sonepur At/P.O./District: District: Subarnapur.

¶46

19. Collector, Sonepur At/P.O./District: District: Subarnapur.

¶47

C.R.P. No.17 of 2009

¶48

Page 4 of 25

¶49

20. Member, Board of Revenue Odisha, Cuttack. … Opposite parties.

¶50

Counsel appeared for the parties:

¶51

For the Petitioners : Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, Mr. D.J. Sahoo, Smt. V. Kar and Mr. S.S. Dash, Advocates For the Opposite Party : None Nos.1 to 17 : For the Opposite Party Additional Standing Counsel No.18 to 20

¶52

P R E S E N T:

¶53

HONOURABLE

¶54

MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

¶55

Date of Hearing : 06.09.2024 :: Date of Order : 19.02.2025

¶56

ORDER

¶57

Raising questions of law, the petitioner being aggrieved by the Order dated 21.06.2002 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack in OMT (VOA) Appeal Case No.1 of 2000, wherein the Order dated 03.06.1999 and Order dated 15.01.2000 passed by the Tahasildar, Sonepur in OMT (VOA) Conversion Case No.15/73 and Order dated 09.06.2000 passed by the Collector, Sonepur in VOA Appeal No.1 of 2000 were set aside and the disputed land was directed to be recorded in Government Khata by restoring to State Government for

¶58

C.R.P. No.17 of 2009

¶59

Page 5 of 25

¶60

distribution among landless persons, this civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:

¶61

“ It is therefore prayed that your Lordship‟s may graciously be pleased to admit, call for the record and after hearing the parties the impugned order may kindly be set aside and the revision petition be allowed.

¶62

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall, as in duty bound ever pray.”

¶63

Facts:

¶64

2. The sequence of events as adumbrated by the petitioners emanate that the disputed “Bhogra lands” in the present Revision Petition with Holding No.4, Plot No.1,5,2/58, 5/57 and 10 measuring an area Ac.3.600 decimal and Holding No. Plot Nos.8, 45 and 39 measuring an Area Ac.27.280 decimal of Village Narasinghpur under Sonepur Police Station were attached to the office of village holder, namely, Balamukunda Dani under Jamindar Ruturaj Kunar.

¶65

2.1. On the land being surrendered on 03.12.1935 by land holder, Zamindar Ruturaj Kunar inducted Gokula Sahu as tenant the entire disputed land and by virtue of a registered document continued to possess the said lands and paid rent to the then Zamindar and obtained rent receipt.

¶66

C.R.P. No.17 of 2009

¶67

Page 6 of 25

¶68

2.2. Due to mismanagement the disputed property were placed under the management of Court of Wards and the then Sub-Divisional Officer, who was the Estate Collector, remained under the management of the entire estate. The Estate Collector had given lease of such lands to Gokula Sahu and his brother Nakula Sahu. The disputed lands were acquired in the name of Gokula Sahu by virtue of Registered document dated 30.06.1945 on behalf of the joint family. The lands were released from the Court of Wards in the year 1984.

¶69

2.3. The Government on 02.02.1956 by virtue of press notice abolished the “Bhogra lands” with effect from 01.04.1955, wherein it is reflected that the person in possession of land on Raiyati basis would be entitled for the possession of the said land. Though the disputed lands were Bhogra lands, the proceedings were dropped as the estate was under the management of the Courts of Wards.

¶70

2.4. An OMTVD Case No.15 of 1973 was commenced on account of introduction of the Odisha Merged Territories (Village Offices Abolition) Act, 1963. In the year 1984, the Estate, being released from the Court of Wards, an order was passed by the authority to distribute the said lands among the landless persons vide Lease Case Nos.2 of 1984 and 1 of 1986.

¶71

C.R.P. No.17 of 2009

¶72

Page 7 of 25

¶73

2.5. Therefore, the present petitioners approached before the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Sonepur by filing T.S. No.59 of 1994 challenging the order passed by the Collector, Bolangir as well as the Tahasildar in said Lease Case, which was decreed on 04.08.1995 with following findings:

¶74

“The suit be and the same is decreed exparte against the defendants without cost. It is further decreed the order passed by defendant-2 in Misc. Case 2/84 and Misc. Case No.1 of 1986 relating to the suit lands is hereby declared as illegal and inoperative and the defendants are hereby directed for fresh disposal of the O.M.T. Case No.15/73 afresh in accordance with the statutory act and rules of O.M.T. Act. The defendants are further injuncted from entering upon the suit lands and distributing any portion thereof until the disposal of the O.M.T. Case No.15 of 1973 in deciding the claims of the plaintiff and others, if any, afresh.”

¶75

2.6. After due enquiry and observation, the Tahasildar, Sonepur vide Order dated 03.06.1999 in OMT(VOA) Case No.15 of 1973 settled the disputed land in favour of the Nakula Sahu and referred the same to the Collector under the Odisha Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 for divesting of the disputed land. The learned Additional District Magistrate, Sonepur vide Letter No.1600 dated 22.10.1999 made observation that the said case was not covered under the provision of the Odisha Government Land Settlement Act. Therefore,

¶76

C.R.P. No.17 of 2009

¶77

Page 8 of 25

¶78

directed the Tahasildar to proceed under the Odisha Merged Territories (Village Office Abolition) Act.

¶79

2.7. Pursuant to the said Letter dated 22.10.1999, the Tahasildar vide Order dated 15.01.2009 corrected the Record-of-Right (RoR) in favour of Nakula Sahu.

¶80

2.8. The opposite parties filed grievance petition before the Collector on 15.01.2000 on the allegation that they are in possession since 28 years. Therefore, the Collector, Sonepur treated the grievance petition as Odisha Merged Territories (Village Office Abolition) Appeal No.01 of 2000 and vide Order dated 09.06.2000 and set aside the Order passed by the Tahasildar. The following order was passed in the said Appeal:

¶81

“***

¶82

Orders dated 03.06.1999 passed by the Tahasildar, Sonepur in OMT (VOA) Case No.15 of 1973 shows that he has not properly weighed the evidence adduced by the Respondent. Except notice (Ext-7), no other documents was filed to prove his actual physical possession of the land. The Tahasildar has not properly appreciated the provisions of OMT (VOA) Act, 1963. (Section 3 & 5) and not proceeded as per the Rules prescribed for the purpose of OMT (VOA) Rules, 1963.

¶83

The land was under the management of Court of Wards till 1984. Finally it was released from the control and management of Court of wards from 21.2.1984 for distribution of the Bhogra land among the land less persons of the village by the Govt. in Revenue and Excise

¶84

C.R.P. No.17 of 2009

¶85

Page 9 of 25

¶86

Department, Orissa, Bhubaneswar vide Letter No.12435/RE. dated 21.02.1984 as per Memo No.800/Rev., Dated 08.03.1984 of OSD (DP) Balangir.

¶87

As per decision of the Hon‟ble Court in T.S. No.59/94 the defendants are injuncted until the disposal of the OMT (VOA) Case No.15 of 1973 in deciding the claims of the plaintiff and others if any. In other words after deciding the claim of the Respondent, Nakula Sahu and others, if they are entitled under the OMT (VOA) Act and Rules the injunction order restraining the Tahasildar for distribution of the Bhogra land among the land less people of the village is automatically vacated.

¶88

In view of the above, the Orders dated 03.06.1999 and all subsequent orders passed by the Tahasildar, Sonepur in OMT (VOA) Case No.15 of 1973 is set-aside. Case remanded to the Tahasildar, Sonepur for fresh hearing and disposal of the case strictly conforming the provisions of the OMT (VOA) Act & Rules, 1963.

¶89

In case the Tahasildar fails to find out whether the Nakula Sahu was the village holder or not, he shall bring it to the notice of the Collector for a decision.

¶90

Send back the L.C.Rs. Pronounced the orders in open court on this day dated the 9^th June, 2000. ”

¶91

2.9. Being aggrieved by the said Order dated 09.06.2000 passed by the Collector, Sonepur in OMT (VOA) Appeal No.01 of 2000, the petitioners approached the Member, Board of Revenue for setting aside the Order of the Collector as well as the Tahasildar by way of Appeal under Section 13(2) of the Odisha Merged Territories (Village Offices Abolition) Act, 1963, which was disposed

¶92

C.R.P. No.17 of 2009

¶93

Page 10 of 25

¶94

of vide Order dated 21.06.2002 with the following observation:

¶95

“13. *** So the land (without mention of any area) has been allotted on lease basis only to raise khariff crops. After the crop was over, the present appellant was directed to return the lands to the Government. This Conditional temporary lease can not create any right, title and interest of the lessee. Besides the possession for khariff crop, the present appellant fails to produce any evidence regarding his claim for possession of the suit land, during subsequent years. A tenant possessing land on contract basis from 30.11.72 to 2.12.72 and if he claimed for settlement as he was in possession on the cuttoff date, 1.12.72, then that possession cannot be accepted for settlement of the land as the aim of legislature by enacting the VOA Act is to release the tenants from the Gountias those were in possession of the particular land for a longtime and developed the lands for agricultural purposes in the context can be held that the possession of the present appellant is not established. The Hon‟ble Full Bench in the case as described earlier at page 231 has also held as follows:

¶96

„The moment the Bhogra lands vested in the state under Section 3(f) the Village Officer had no right to possess the land. There would be a time lag between the declaration and actual delivery of possession. During the intervening period the Village Officer or any other person might be actually continuing in possession of the Bhogra lands. But such actual physical possession is not on the basis

¶97

C.R.P. No.17 of 2009

¶98

Page 11 of 25

¶99

of any right to possess. On vesting the title and the right to possess are extinguished.‟

¶100

When the estate has been vested with the State Government during the year 1955 through the press note, the temporary conditional possession for a short period by way of lease during 1972-73 can not create any right, title and interest of the present appellant.

¶101

14. In the circumstances, Order dated 03.06.1999 and 15.01.2000 of Tahasildar, Sonepur in OMT (VOA) Conversion Case No.15 of 1973 and Order dated 09.06.2000 of Collector, Sonepur in VOA Appeal No.1 of 2000 are set aside. The lands be recorded in Government for distribution among landless persons.

¶102

15. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶103

16. Pronounced the order in open court on this, the 21^st day of June, 2002.”

¶104

2.10. Still dissatisfied, with a prayer to quash Order dated 21.06.2002, the petitioners approached this Court by way of this Civil Revision Petition invoking under Section 13(3)(a) of the Odisha Merged Territories (Village Offices Abolition) Act, 1963.

¶105

Hearing:

¶106

3. On being noticed, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel. Since M/s. B. Moharana, Advocate and his associates and M/s. B.H. Mohanty, Advocate and his associates have entered appearance on behalf of

¶107

C.R.P. No.17 of 2009

¶108

Page 12 of 25

¶109

Opposite Parties by filing their respective Vakalatanama , none appeared on behalf of the opposite parties when the matter was taken up for hearing.

¶110

3.1. Heard Sri Amit Prasad Bose, learned Advocate for the petitioners.

¶111

3.2. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the matter is reserved for pronouncement of order.

¶112

Provisions of the statute:

¶113

4. Relevant provisions of the Odisha Merged Territories (Village Offices Abolition) Act, 1963, are reproduced hereunder:

¶114

“2. Definitions.—

¶115

In this Act unless the context otherwise requires:

¶116

(a) “appointed date” in relation to any area means the date of appointed in respect of such area by a notification under sub-section (3) of Section 1;

¶117

(b) “Bhogra lands” in relation to any village office means lands by whatever name described or locally known, whether or not recorded as such in the settlement papers, held as emolument in respect -of such office;

¶118

(f) “Gountia” inclrldes Gountia with protected status;

¶119

C.R.P. No.17 of 2009

¶120

Page 13 of 25

¶121

(g) “Gounti-raiyati lands” means land recorded as such in the settlement papers in the merged territories of the former State of Bamra;

¶122

(i) “right of occupancy” shall have the same meaning as has been assigned to it in the Odisha Merged States‟ (Laws) Act, 1950 (Act 4 of 1950) in respect of an occupancy tenant;

¶123

(j) “Village Office” in relation to any of the merged territories specified in column 1 of .the Schedule shall mean the office shown in column 2 of the said Schedule in respect of such merged territories;

¶124

3. Abolition of Village Offices and consequences thereof.—

¶125

Notwithstanding anything in any law, usage, settlement, grant, sanad or order or in any judgment, decree or order of a Court, with effect from and on the appointed date:

¶126

(a) the Village Offices, if any, within the respective territories shall be deemed to have been abolished;

¶127

(b) all the incidents of the service tenures relating to such offices shall be deemed to have been extinguished;

¶128

(c) all settlements, sanads, and all grants in pursuance of which such tenures were being held immediately before the appointed date shall be deemed to have been cancelled;

¶129

(d) the rights of the holders of such offices to receive any emolument shall be deemed to have been terminated;

¶130

C.R.P. No.17 of 2009

¶131

Page 14 of 25

¶132

(e) all rights to hold office and any liability to render service appertaining to such office shall stand extinguished;

¶133

(f) all Bhogra lands shill stand resumed and vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances; and

¶134

(g) the holder of any Village Office shall cease to have the right to hold all other lands which he would not have continued to hold except by virtue of or as incidental to his office.

¶135

4. Collector to decide, if a person is the holder of a Village Office.—

¶136

(1) If any question arises as to whether a person was immediately before the appointed date the holder of any Village Office the Collector shall after giving the person affected an opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry decide the question.

¶137

(2) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Collector under sub-section (1) may within thirty days of such decision prefer an appeal to the Board of Revenue and the decision of the Board on such appeal subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 13 shall be final.

¶138

5. Settlement of Bhogra lands.—

¶139

(1) All Bhogra lauds resumed under the provisions of this Act shall subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) be settled with rights of occupancy therein on a fair and equitable rent with the holder of the Village Office or with him and all those other persons, if any, who may

¶140

C.R.P. No.17 of 2009

¶141

Page 15 of 25

¶142

be in the enjoyment of the land or any part thereof as his co-sharers or as tenants under him or under such co-sharer to the extent that each such person was in separate and actual cultivating possession of the same immediately before the appointed date.

¶143

(2) The total area of such land in possession of each such person shall be subject to a reservation of a certain fraction thereof in favour of the Grama Sasan within whose limits the land is situate and the extent of such reservation shall be determined in the following manner, namely:

¶144

Land in possession	Extent of reservation
For the first 10 acres	Nil
For the next 20 acres	5 percent
For the next 70 acres	10 per cent
For the next 100 acres	30 per cent
For the remaining	40 per cent

¶145

Provided that the area reserved shall, as far as practicable, be in compact block or blocks of one acre or more.

¶146

10. Determination of question if the abolition amounts to acquisition.—

¶147

(1) If any person is aggrieved by the provision of this Act on the ground that if provides for the acquition of property by the State, such person may apply to the Collector for the determination of the question and compensation, if any, within a period of three months from the appointed date.

¶148

C.R.P. No.17 of 2009

¶149

Page 16 of 25

¶150

(2) The Collector shall after holding an inquiry and giving all parties interested an opportunity of being heard determine the right to and the amount of such compensation, if any, as may be payable so far as may be in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1) of Section 23 and Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

¶151

Provided that in determining the compensation the Collector shall take into account the value of the interest acquired by such person as a result of the settlement, if any, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 5, 6 and 7.

¶152

(3) Any amount paid as compensation in respect of any land settled under Sections 5, 6 and 7 with any person other than the holder of the VilIage Office shall be realised by the State Government from such person and all such amounts shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue.

¶153

(4) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Collector under sub-section (2) may within thirty days of such decision prefer an appeal to the Board of Revenue and the decision of Board on such appeal shall subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 13 be final.

¶154

12. Procedure to be followed in proceedings.—

¶155

The State Government may, by rules made in that behalf specify either generally or in relation to any particular area the time within which, the authorities by whom and the manner in which proceedings in respect of matters under Sections 5, 6 and 7 including matters preliminary, incidental or ancillary thereto shall be commenced, heard and disposed of.

¶156

C.R.P. No.17 of 2009

¶157

Page 17 of 25

¶158

13. Appeal and Revision.—

¶159

(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in Appeal and this Act any person aggrieved by any order passed under this Act or the Rules made thereunder, may prefer an appeal within thirty days from the date of the order before the Collector; and if the original order is passed by the Collector before the Board of Revenue.

¶160

(2) Any person aggrieved by an order passed in appeal not being an appeal before the Board of Revenue, may within thirty days from the date of the order prefer an appeal both on questions of fact and law before the Board of Revenue, who may after calling for the records and giving the parties an opportunity of being heard pass such orders confirming, modifying or reversing the order in question according as the Board deems proper.

¶161

(3) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Board of Revenue in an appeal—

¶162

(a) under any of the provisions of this Act other than sub-section (4) of Section 10 may, within sixty days from the date of such order, file an application for revision on a question of law before the High Court: and

¶163

(b) under sub-section (4) of Section 10 may within sixty days from the date of such order, file an appeal before the High Court,

¶164

and subject to the decision of the High Court the order passed by the Board of Revenue shall be final.

¶165

C.R.P. No.17 of 2009

¶166

Page 18 of 25

¶167

15. Authorities to exercise certain powers of civil Court.—

¶168

(1) The collector, Board of Revenue and the other authorities specified under Sections 12 and 13 shall for the purposes of this Act have the same powers as are vested in a Court under the Code of CiviI Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) when trying a suit in respect of:

¶169

(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath;

¶170

(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;

¶171

(c) receiving evidence on affidavit; and

¶172

(d) such other matters as may be prescribed.

¶173

(2) All enquiries and proceedings before the aforesaid authorities under this Act shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193, 219 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860).”

¶174

5. Relevant provisions of the Odisha Merged Territories (Village Offices Abolition) Rules, 1963, read thus:

¶175

“Chapter-VIII

¶176

Miscellaneous

¶177

32. Procedure to be followed by the Collector while proceeding under provisions of the Act.—

¶178

(1) When a claim is preferred before the Collector under sub-section (1) of Section 4 or sub-section (2) of

¶179

C.R.P. No.17 of 2009

¶180

Page 19 of 25

¶181

Section 10, he shall follow the procedure laid down below:

¶182

(a) he shall issue a general notice inviting objections to the claim within thirty days;

¶183

(b) all objections received during this period shall be taken into consideration;

¶184

(c) as soon after the expiry of this period as may be possible, he shall call upon the claimant and the objectors, if any, to be present for hearing on a date to be fixed for the purpose;

¶185

(d) on the date so fixed, or any other date to which the proceedings may be adjourned he shall call upon the claim to prove his claim;

¶186

(e) the objector, if any, shall thereafter be called upon to prove his objection;

¶187

(f) the parties shall be entitled to call witnesses and produce documents in support of their contention:

¶188

Provided that if any party requires the Collector to summon any witness for deposing in his favour or for production of any document the Collector shall employ with such demand unless, for reasons to be recorded in writing he considers it unnecessary to do so;

¶189

(g) the Collector shall record in his own hand and in a memorandum, the material averments of the parties, the material portions of the evidence, his decision and the reasons therefor.

¶190

C.R.P. No.17 of 2009

¶191

Page 20 of 25

¶192

(2) Filing of appeals before the Collector and their disposal shall be regulated by the following procedure, namely:

¶193

(a) with every appeal, a certified copy of the order appealed against shall be filed;

¶194

(b) if an appeal is admitted, the Collector may call for a report from the officer against whose order the appeal has been filed:

¶195

Provided that the points on which such a report is required shall be distinctly mentioned in the order calling for the report;

¶196

(c) pending disposal of the appeal, operation of the order appealed against may, at the discretion of the Collector, be stayed;

¶197

(d) a notice of the appeal and the date of its hearing shall be served on the respondent, if any; and

¶198

(e) reasonable opportunity shall be given to the parties to be heard in person or through pleaders before final order in appeal is passed.

¶199

33. Procedure to be followed by Board of Revenue while proceeding under provisions of the Act.—

¶200

The filing hearing and disposal of petitions of appeal or revision before the Board of Revenue shall be regulated by the provisions of the Board of Revenue Orissa Regulations, 1963.”

¶201

Consideration of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner:

¶202

C.R.P. No.17 of 2009

¶203

Page 21 of 25

¶204

6. In course of hearing, Sri Amit Prasad Bose, learned Advocate confined his argument to the following question of law as raised in the petition:

¶205

“For that it reveals from the impugned order itself that a pure question of law was raised before the second appellate authority that whether the 1^st appellate authority has jurisdiction to treat a grievance petition as an appeal in the absence of any suo motu power of appeal conferred by the statute but there is neither any discussion nor any finding to that effect by the second appellate court, as such impugned order is against law and liable to be set aside.”

¶206

6.1. The Order dated 09.06.2000 of the Collector, Sonepur in OMT (VOA) Appeal No.1 of 2000 reveals as follows:

¶207

“The landless S.C. people of Village Baidyanath filed a grievance petition before the Collector to. conduct an enquiry regarding the illegal settlement of 32 Acres of waste land of Mouza: Narasinghgarh which was under the management of Court of Wards in favour of one Nakita Sahu of village: Baidyanath. To examine the validity of the settlement orders passed by the Tahasildar, Sonepur in OMT (VOA) Case No. 15 of 1973 in favour of Nakula Sahu of village Baidyanath, it was converted to an appeal Case under Section 13(1) of the OMT (VOA) Act, 1963.”

¶208

6.2. Against such order of the Collector, the petitioners have raised the question of law before the Board of Revenue in OMT (VOA) Case No.1 of 2000 ( Nakula Sahoo Vrs. Kantha Suna and others) . As it appears objection has

¶209

C.R.P. No.17 of 2009

¶210

Page 22 of 25

¶211

been raised with respect to non-adherence to mandate prescribed under Rule 32(2) of the OMT (VOA) Rules. It has been held in such context by the Board of Revenue at paragraph 10 of the impugned Order dated 21.06.2002 of the Board of Revenue as follows:

¶212

“10. Shri Mishra, Advocate for the Appellant further submitted that the admission and adjudication of Appeal No.1 of 2000 by Collector, Sonepur contravenes the provisions of Rule 32(2)(a) of the VOA Rules. Rule 32(2)(a) provides for filing an appeal along with a copy of order appealed against. Appeal No.1 of 2000 of Collector, Sonepur reveals that no certified copy of the order of the trial Court had been enclosed with the application of the present opposite parties or no reasons thereof explained in the application of Appeal No.1/2000. Thus it was not proper for the Collector to go ahead with the Appeal Case. In the fitness of things, the appellants should have been advised to refile the appeal with the requisite documents.”

¶213

6.3. Having thus observed, the Board of Revenue should not have proceeded to decide the second appeal under Section 13(2) of the OMT (VOA) Act on merits. When it is the observation that the appeal under Section 13(1) was incompetent, the Board of Revenue ought not to have delved into merit of the matter.

¶214

6.4. Conjoint reading of Section 13 of the OMV (VOA) Act and Rule 32 of the OMV (VOA) Rules with the observations

¶215

C.R.P. No.17 of 2009

¶216

Page 23 of 25

¶217

made in the Order dated 09.06.2000 of the Collector, Sonepur and the Order dated 21.06.2002 would go to show that the procedure envisaged in the provisions are not followed.

¶218

6.5. It is deserved to be observed that if remedy is made available for aggrieved party by way of an appeal, the same is to be filed in accordance with provisions of the statute. It is trite that appeal is statutory remedy and could be subject to conditions. Therefore, as it transpires from the Order dated 21.06.2002 of the Board of Revenue, the appeal has not been filed in the manner prescribed under Rule 32 of the OMT (VOA) Rules, 1963.

¶219

Conclusion:

¶220

7. Since it is already observed that on the face of the impugned Order, the Board of Revenue has made observation that the appeal filed before the Collector, Sonepur was not in order in terms of Rule 32 of the OMT (VOA) Rules, this Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the Order dated 21.06.2002 of the Board of Revenue suffers legal infirmity and in exercise of power under Section 13(3) of the OMT (VOA) Act, this Court is inclined to show indulgence.

¶221

8. Under the above premise, it would be apt to set aside the Order dated 21.06.2002 passed in OMT (VOA) Appeal Case No. 1 of 2000 and remit the matter to the Member,

¶222

C.R.P. No.17 of 2009

¶223

Page 24 of 25

¶224

Signature Not Verified

¶225

Digitally Signed Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR SETHY Designation: Personal Assistant (Secretary-in-Charge) Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Feb-2025 17:42:52

¶226

Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack for reconsideration of the appeal in the light of the observation made keeping in view the statutory provisions. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of, but in the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.

¶227

(MURAHARI SRI RAMAN) JUDGE

¶228

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 19^th February, 2025//Aswini

¶229

C.R.P. No.17 of 2009

¶230

Page 25 of 25

Ashish Ku.Sahu v. Kantha Suna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Ku.Sahu v. Kantha Suna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Ku.Das Vs Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.

Paradip International Cargo Terminal Pvt.Ltd. Vs M.V. Debi

Ugrasen@Ugrasen Naik Vs Tofan Naik and Ors.

Sabita Barada Vs State of Odisha

Susri Sujani Das @ Sushree Sujnanai @ Sushree Sugyani Das Vs Satyabrata Barik

Debasmita Swain Vs Rakesh Kumar Pradhan