PURUSOTTAM CHOUDHURY Vs. COMMISSIONER CONSOLIDATION
LAWS(ORI)-2000-7-22
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on
July 06,2000
Purusottam Choudhury
Appellant
VERSUS
Commissioner Consolidation
Respondents
JUDGEMENT
P.K.MISRA, J. -
(1.)THIS writ application is directed against the decisions rendered by the Consolidation authorities.
(2.)THERE is no dispute that Antaryami Mohapatra and Chintamoni Mohapatra were the landlords and Sadhu Choudhury was the Sikim tenant under them. Hini Choudhury, present opposite party No.4, is the daughter of Sadhu Choudhury. The present petitioner claims that by virtue of the sale deed dated 29.6.1942, Sadhu Choudhury sold his right in favour of the present petitioner and one Sridhar Choudhury and delivered possession and the present petitioner and Sridhar Choudhury continued as tenants. It is further claimed that in a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, relating to a part of the disputed land, compensation was paid to Chintamoni Mohapatra as the landlord and Sridhar and . the petitioner representing the tenancy interest. The present petitioner claims that after the death of Sridhar without any heir, the present petitioner is in possession of the entire disputed land. The petitioner further claims that taking advantage of his absence, the land was recorded in the name of Chintamoni Mohapatra and Antaryami Mohapatra as landlords and Sadhu Choudhury as Sikim raiyat in the record -of -rights of the year 1983.
During the consolidation proceeding land was recorded in the names of Antaryami Mohapatra and others as landlords and Hini (present opposite party No.4) as Sikim raiyat. The present petitioner filed Objection stating that his name should be recorded as Sikim tenant instead of opposite party No.4. Such petition having been rejected by the Consolidation Officer whose order has been confirmed in appeal and revision, the present writ application has been filed.
(3.)THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised several contentions in support of his claim that the right of the petitioner as Sikim tenant should have been recoginsed. He has further submitted that subsequently, the petitioner has purchased the property from Antaryami Mohapatra and as such, the right of Sikim tenant has merged with that of the landlord.
The learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has supported the reasoning by the forums below.
(2.)THERE is no dispute that Antaryami Mohapatra and Chintamoni Mohapatra were the landlords and Sadhu Choudhury was the Sikim tenant under them. Hini Choudhury, present opposite party No.4, is the daughter of Sadhu Choudhury. The present petitioner claims that by virtue of the sale deed dated 29.6.1942, Sadhu Choudhury sold his right in favour of the present petitioner and one Sridhar Choudhury and delivered possession and the present petitioner and Sridhar Choudhury continued as tenants. It is further claimed that in a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, relating to a part of the disputed land, compensation was paid to Chintamoni Mohapatra as the landlord and Sridhar and . the petitioner representing the tenancy interest. The present petitioner claims that after the death of Sridhar without any heir, the present petitioner is in possession of the entire disputed land. The petitioner further claims that taking advantage of his absence, the land was recorded in the name of Chintamoni Mohapatra and Antaryami Mohapatra as landlords and Sadhu Choudhury as Sikim raiyat in the record -of -rights of the year 1983.
During the consolidation proceeding land was recorded in the names of Antaryami Mohapatra and others as landlords and Hini (present opposite party No.4) as Sikim raiyat. The present petitioner filed Objection stating that his name should be recorded as Sikim tenant instead of opposite party No.4. Such petition having been rejected by the Consolidation Officer whose order has been confirmed in appeal and revision, the present writ application has been filed.
(3.)THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised several contentions in support of his claim that the right of the petitioner as Sikim tenant should have been recoginsed. He has further submitted that subsequently, the petitioner has purchased the property from Antaryami Mohapatra and as such, the right of Sikim tenant has merged with that of the landlord.
The learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has supported the reasoning by the forums below.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.