NARAYAN CHANDRA PRADHAN Vs. TAHASILDAR, BHUBANESWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by order at Annexure-6 dated 26.4.2011 passed by opp. Party no. 1- Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in Rev. Misc. Case No.13 of 2010 rejecting petitioners? claim for recording of the case land by way of mutation in their names, the petitioners have filed this writ petition with a prayer to direct opposite party no.1- Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar by appropriate writ for correction of Record of Rights in respect of case land in consonance with order passed by the OEA Collector under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (for short the "O.E.A. Act?).

(2.) Petitioners? case is that case land relating to erstwhile estate of ex-intermediary of Killa Gadkana was settled with the exintermediary by the O.E.A. Collector under Sections 6 and 7 of the O.E.A. Act by order under Annexure-2 dated 8.3.1961 passed in OEA Case No. 13 of 1959-60. Petitioners purchased the case land from the ex-intermediary on the strength of registered sale deed at Annexure-1 dated 23.7.1965. However, in the current settlement Record of Rights, the case land was wrongly recorded as "Rakhit Anabadi? in the name of State Government. Nonetheless, the petitioners are in peaceful possession of the case land since the date of purchase. It is alleged that on 18.8.2008 some persons claiming themselves to be officials of the State Government destroyed the barbed wire fence around the case land to certain extent. Apprehending forcible dispossession, the petitioners filed W.P.(C) No. 19494 of 2008 which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 30.1.2009 directing the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to conduct an enquiry into the allegations made in the writ petition and take appropriate decision in the matter. It was also directed that till completion of enquiry, status quo in respect of the case land be maintained. Petitioners also assert to have filed Mutation Case No. 3614 of 2009 before the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for recording of the case land in their names. However, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, instead of proceeding with the mutation case, passed the impugned order rejecting the petitioners? claim of mutation of the case land in their names concluding that order dated 8.3.1961 passed in OEA Case No. 13 of 1959-60, which is the basis of petitioners? claim over the case land, having been passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and void, and consequently, subsequent sale by the exintermediary to the petitioners is deemed to be void.

(3.) It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order passed by Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar amounts to illegally sitting in appeal over the order passed by the OEA Collector under the O.E.A. Act. It was strenuously argued that case land was settled with the ex-intermediary about 50 years back on 8.3.1961 and the order passed in OEA Case No. 13 of 1959-60 having not been assailed by the State, has attained finality. It was incumbent on the part of the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to act upon the order passed by OEA Collector which is in force and enforceable. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, even if an order is void, a declaration to that effect has to be made by competent authority or court. In absence of such declaration, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. In support of her contentions, learned counsel for petitioners placed reliance on decisions of this Court in Trilochan Singh and another vs. Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Orissa and others, 1995 79 CutLT 507, Chunti Patra and others vs. State of Orissa and others,1996 81 CutLT 292 and Prafulla Chandra Muduli and others vs. State of Orissa and others,2005 Supp1 OrissaLR 950.