Orissa High Court
Jagannath Bidyapitha And Another vs State Of Odisha And Others on 30 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.18765 OF 2021
Jagannath Bidyapitha and another .... Petitioners
Mr. Bidesh Ranjan Behera,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. Dhananjay Mund,
Additional Government Advocate
For Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 30.06.2021
02. 1. This matter is taken up through video conferencing mode.
2. This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the
Opposite Party No.4-Tahasildar, Pattamundai to conduct the
enquiry in R.P. Case No.3861 of 1993 giving opportunity of
hearing to the Petitioners. A further prayer has been made to
restrain the Opposite Parties, more particularly, Opposite Party
No.4 from evicting the Petitioners and demolishing the school
building situated over Plot No.315 under Khata No.100 to an
extent of Ac.0.64 decimals and Plot No.314 to an extent of
Ac.0.04 decimals in Mouza-Sankhapur under Pattamundai
Tahasil in the district of Kendrapara (for short, 'the case land')
till disposal of R.P. Case No.3861 of 1993 pending before the
Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack-
Opposite Party No.2.
3. Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that
the case land was leased out in favour of the Petitioners' school
// 2 //
and the part of the school building is standing thereon. When
the matter stood thus, the Opposite Party No.5-Ramesh
Chandra Rout filed Revision Petition No.3861 of 1993 before
the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Odisha,
Cuttack under Section 15(b) of the Orissa Survey & Settlement
Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') for correction of the R.O.R of
the case land in his name. The said revision petition was
allowed remitting the matter back to the Tahasildar,
Pattamundai to enquire into the matter flow of title of the
vendors vide RSD dated 26th November, 1993 and subsequent
transfer by the ex-landlord, if any, and to correct the R.O.R. by
causing a field enquiry. It was also directed that the Petitioners
should be noticed in the matter while conducting the field
enquiry. Assailing the same, said Ramesh Chandra Rout-
Opposite Party No.5 in whose favour the Registered Sale Deed
dated 26.11.1993 was executed moved this Court in OJC
No.1315 of 1995,which was disposed of vide order dated
14.01.1997 with the following direction:
"10. For the foregoing reasons and in the facts and
circumstances of the present case as discussed
hereinbefore we dispose of the writ application with
the following directions:
(i) The Revisional Authority itself will rehear and
dispose of the Revision case in accordance with law
and in the light of the observations made in the
judgment.
(ii) The Tahasildar will make an enquiry as directed in
the impugned order and submit the report to the
Revsional Authority within a period of two months
from the date of communications of this order.
(iii) The Revisional Authority will give appropriate
opportunity to the parties to submit their objections, if
// 3 //
any, to the said report, and will determine
acceptability of the report and the contents thereof.
(iv) The Revisional Authority will also give opportunities
to the parties interested to adduce evidence in support
of their respective cases.
(v) The Revisional Authority will dispose of the Revision
Case after considering the relevant materials on
record within a period of three months from the date
of submission of report by the Tahasildar."
Accordingly, the Tahasildar, Pattamundai took up the
enquiry. When the matter stood thus, the Opposite Party No.5
moved this Court in W.P.(C) No.11476 of 2020, which was
disposed of on 26th June, 2020 with a direction to the
Revisional Authority to dispose of the Revision Case No.3861
of 1993 within a period of three months from the date of
communication of the said order giving opportunity of hearing
to the parties concerned. Receiving such order, enquiry in Misc.
Case No.520 of 2017 (arising out of R.P.Case No.3861 of
1993) was taken up by the Tahasildar, Pattamundai. In view of
the earlier direction by this Court, the Petitioners made a prayer
to be impleaded as party and have their say in the matter. The
Tahasildar, Pattamundai accepted the prayer of the Petitioners
vide order dated 16th October, 2020 and directed the Opposite
Party No.5, namely, Ramesh Chandra Rout to supply all
documents to the Opposite Parties therein including the
Petitioners. However, in the meantime CONTC No.5549 of
2020 was filed alleging non-compliance of the order passed in
W.P.(C) No.11476 of 2020. In view of the above, the
Tahasildar, Pattamundai without affording any opportunity to
the petitioners to put forth their case, posted the matter awaiting
// 4 //
instruction from the Court of the Commissioner. The
Petitioners, thus, apprehending that they may not be given
reasonable opportunity of hearing, has approached this Court
seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
4. Mr. Mund, learned Additional Government Advocate for the
State submits that since the petition filed by the Petitioners has
been accepted, the Petitioners will be given an opportunity of
hearing when the enquiry will be taken up and their
apprehension, as such, is baseless. If the Petitioners have any
grievance against the inaction of the Tahasildar, Pattamundai,
they could have approached the Revisional Authority under
whose direction the enquiry as aforesaid is being made. In that
view of the matter, he submits that the writ petition is
premature and is liable to be dismissed.
5. Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is
observed that while disposing of the Revision Petition No.3861
of 1993 vide order dated 26.12.1994, the Commissioner, Land
Records and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack has specifically
directed to serve notice on the school (Petitioners) and to give it
an opportunity of hearing. Although the said order was assailed
before this Court, but this Court while directing to the
Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack
to take a final decision in the revision petition, observed that the
enquiry as directed earlier should be conducted giving
opportunity of hearing to the parties to submit their objection.
In that view of the matter, the Petitioners are entitled to be
heard at the time of enquiry by the Tahasildar. From the order
// 5 //
sheet in Misc. Case No.520 of 2007 (arising out of R.P. Case
No.3861 of 1993) under Annexure-6, it appears that although
the prayer of the Petitioners to be heard has been accepted but
practically they are not being given opportunity of hearing. On
the other hand, it is submitted by Mr. Behera, learned counsel
that the villagers are moving this Court time and again for
eviction of the Petitioners from the land in question. It is further
submitted that although the case land has been leased out in
favour of the Petitioners' School but the leased deed has not yet
been executed due to pendency of the R.P. Case No. 3861 of
1993.
6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid submission of
learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the Petitioners should be given an opportunity of
hearing before the Tahasildar, Pattmundai when he takes up the
enquiry in Misc. Case No. 520 of 2007. They should also be
given an opportunity of hearing before the revisinal court in
R.P. No. No.3861 of 1993.
7. Accordingly, it is directed that the Tahasildar, Pattamundai
while making enquiry in the matter in Misc. Case No.520 of
2007 shall give an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners to
put forth their case in the matter and submit his report
accordingly. It is further directed that the revisional authority
while adjudicating the revision shall also give an opportunity of
hearing to the Petitioners.
8. Till disposal of Revision Petition No.3861 of 1993, it is
directed that status quo as on today with regard to possession
over Plot No.315 under Khata No.100 to an extent of Ac.0.64
// 6 //
decimals and Plot No.314 to an extent of Ac.0.04 decimals in
Mouza-Sankhapur under Pattamundai Tahasil in the district of
Kendrapara shall be maintained by the parties.
9. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation
are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a
printout of the order available in the High Court's website, at
par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned
advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court's Notice
No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court's Notice
No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
jm
