GOKUL CHANDRA KANUNGO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE recalcitrant attitude of opposite parties in the face of decision of the Civil Court has given rise to the fifing of the present writ application seeking for a direction to the opposite parties to hand over the possession of the disputed land and building as described in the writ application and to pay Rs. 30,000/ - towards maintenance and repair charges and Rs. 80,512/ - towards illegal occupation of the house and further pay at the rate of Rs. 544/ - per month till the actual eviction.

(2.) IT is not necessary to notice the long history in this case. Suffice it to say that the petitioner had purchased the disputed house and the land from the previous owner Satrughna Malla in the year 1954 and subsequently, he had filed Title Suit No. 165 of 1961 for title and recovery of possession. While declaring the title of the petitioner and directing recovery of possession, the trial court also injuncted the Tahsildar, Kujang, and the State of Orissa from disturbing the petitioner's possession. It is claimed that the petitioner took possession through the Court on 28 -8 -1965. It is further claimed that the Consolidation Officer took the house on a monthly rent of Rs. 544/ - by entering into an agreement which was allegedly signed by Shri Bijaya Kumar Malla, the successor -in -interest of Sri Satrughna Malla. The petitioner claims that the aforesaid Bijaya Kumar Malla was the power -of -attorney holder of the petitioner. Since the possession was not delivered and certain other disputes cropped up, the petitioner again filed Title Suit No. 86 of 1982 impleading the State of Orissa through the Revenue Secretary, the Collector, Cuttack, the Commissioner, Land Reforms, the Sub -Divisional Officer, Jagatsinghpur, Tahasildar, Manijanga and the Consolidation Officer, Tirtol, as defendants. The suit was for recovery of possession. The suit was decreed on contest against defendants 2 and 5, that is to say, the Collector and the Tahsildar, Manijanga, and ex parte against the other defendants. The defendants were directed to deliver possession of the disputed house within a month. The order waspassed on 18 -9 -1993. The petitioner claims that in spite of such decree, instead of vacating possession, the defendants have tried to set up other officers with a view to deprive the petitioner of the fruits of the decree obtained by him.

(3.) IT is surprising that a Government/Officer has chosen to take such a stand in the face of a decree passed by a Civil Court. Even the deponent had the audacity to aver -