PRANAKRUSHNA PRADHAN Vs. HAREKRISHNA PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following genealogy would show the relationship of the petitioners and opposite parties 1 to 3. THE correctness: of the genealogy is not disputed before us. THE petitioner's case is that the family was possessed of agricultural lands and they and opposite parties 1 to 3 as cosharers were in joint possession of the disputed lands. Dinabandhu, father of opposite parties 1 to 3, died in 1958. THEreafter Harekrishna (O.P. No.1) became the karta of the family. After the estate vested, O.P. No.1 filed an application under Section 8-A of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) for settlement of the disputed lands with O.Ps.1 to 3 under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act. THEre was no reference to the petitioners in that application as being cosharers. Admittedly, O.Ps.1 to 3 were intermediaries and they have been so recorded. THE petitioners have not been recorded as intermediaries. After getting notice of such an application the petitioners filed objection under Section 8-A(4) of the Act. THE matter was enquired into. THE Addl. Tahasildar, Salepur, came to the conclusion that the petitioners were cosharers of O.Ps.1 to 3. Accordingly, he passed an order that the disputed lands would be settled both with the petitioners and O.Ps.1 to 3 under Sections 6 and 7 (see Annexure-1). Against this order O.Ps.1 to 3 filed an appeal before the Addl. District Magistrate, Cuttack, who by his order (Annexure-2) dated 13-9-1966 remanded the case for further enquiry. After remand, evidence was taken and the Addl. Tahasildar came to the same conclusion that the petitioners were cosharers of O.Ps.1 to 3 and the disputed lands would be settled with both the parties. That order was reversed in appeal at the instance of O.Ps.1 to 3 by the Addl. District Magistrate, Cuttack, by his order (Annexure-4) dated 22-4-1968. It is against this order that the present writ application has been filed under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) MR. Rath for the petitioners contends that on the concurrent findings of both the Addl. Tahasildar and the Addl. District Magistrate that the petitioners were cosharers of O.Ps.1 to 3 who were admittedly intermediaries and had filed the application under Sec.8-A for settlement of the lands under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act within time, the Addl. District Magistrate was wrong in recording a finding that the disputed lands would be settled with O.Ps.1 to 3 to the exclusion of the petitioners and his finding is liable to be set aside. This contention requires careful examination.