NRUSINGHA CHARAN SAMAL Vs. KUNTALA KUMARI SAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ applications have been filed challenging the orders passed by the Consolidation authorities. The facts giving rise to the present writ application are as follows : Jayakrushana had three sons, Shyama, Krushna and Rajkishore. O.J.C.No. 2996/93 has been filed by the petitioners representing the branch of Rajkishore. The connected writ application has been filed by the members representing the branch of Shyama. The members of the - branch of Krushna, who have entered appearance through counsel are supporting the case of the petitioners in O.J.C. No. 2996/93,

(2.) DURING consolidation proceedings, the land was originally recorded in Rakshit Khata in the name of State Government. Two Objection Cases were initiated at the instance of the petitioners in the two writ applications. In the objection filed on behalf of the petitioners in O.J.C. No. 2996/ 93, it was claimed that the disputed land had been leased out by the ex - intermediary by unregistered document in favour of Jayakrushna in the year 1928 and after the death of Jayakrushna, the three branches inherited the property in equal shares and after vesting the three branches became tenants in view of the provisions contained in Section 8(1) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act (in short, the 'O.E.A.Act'). It was further pleaded that 'Ekpadia' had been filed in the name of Shyama as he was the 'Karta' after the death of Jayakrushna. The petitioners in O.J.C. No. 7542/92 claimed that the property was given to Shyama by way of oral lease in the year 1943 and after vesting Shyama continued as tenant and 'Ekpadia' was as such submitted in his favour and as such the property should be recorded in the name of Shyam's branch only.

(3.) NO further appeal was filed by the State Government against the aforesaid order. However, persons representing the branch of Shyama filed appeal claiming that the entire property should have been recorded in their names and nothing should have been recorded in the names of persons representing the branches of Krushna and Rajkishore. The appellate authority allowed the appeal and directed that the property should be recorded in the name of Shyama's branch on the finding that 'Ekpadia' had been submitted in the name of Shyama alone and as such it should be recorded in the names of members representing the branch of Shyama.