Orissa High Court
Sanjukta Panda vs Joint Commissioner on 24 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P. (C) No.5185 of 2016
Sanjukta Panda .... Petitioner
Mr. Gyaneswar Satapathy, Advocate
-versus-
Joint Commissioner, Settlement .... Opp. Parties
an Consolidation, Berhampur,
Ganjam and others
Mr. Dillip Kumar Mishra,
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R.MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
24.11.2021
12. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the
order dated 29th January, 2016 (Annexure-6) passed by the
Tahasildar, Madanpur-Rampur in Revenue Misc. Case No.4 of
2016 (arising out of SRP No.356 of 2009).
3. It is submitted by Mr. Satapathy, learned counsel for the
Petitioner that the land in question originally recorded in the
name of the husband of the Petitioner, which was wrongly
recorded in the name of the Home Department in the current
settlement and the R.O.R. was published accordingly. Hence,
she filed a grievance petition before the Revenue Divisional
Commissioner, Southern Division), Berhampur and the Joint
Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Berhampur upon
receipt of the said grievance petition registered it as a revision
petition under Section 15(a) of the Orissa Survey & Settlement
Act, 1958. Upon consideration of the facts of the case, the Joint
// 2 //
Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Berhampur vide
his order dated 7th April, 2010 (Annexure-3) directed to revise
the R.O.R. in name of the Petitioner as per actual field
possession. However, the matter was not taken up by the
Tahasildar, Madanpur-Rampur for a considerable period, for
which the Petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.(C)
No.22446 of 2015, which was disposed of 21st December, 2015
with a direction to the Tahasildar, Madanpur-Rampur to issue
revised R.O.R. in favour of the Petitioner within a period of one
month from the date of production of certified copy of the said
order, if there is no other impediment. Pursuant to the direction
of this Court, the Tahasildar, Madan-Rampur initiated Misc.
Case No.4 of 2016 on his fie and observed as follows:
"After receipt of the above order dated 07.04.2010 the
then Tahasildar, M. Rampur had reopened the Misc. Case
No.811/82 and closed the case on 17.02.2011 with an
observation that the petitioner Damodar Panda cannot be
given any relief s the field possession is in accordance with
the Hal R.O.R. Later on Smt. Sanjukta Panda the wife of late
Damodar Panda filed W.P.(C) No.22446 of 2015 before the
Hon'ble High Court and in turn the Hon'ble Court has
directed the Tahasildar, M. Rampur to issue revised ROR in
favour of Petitioner within a period of one month from the
date of production of a certified copy of the order, if there is
no other impediment.
Since the order of the Joint Commissioner, Berhampur
has been compiled by the then Tahasildar, M. Rampur
reopening the Misc. Case No.811/82 and as there is sufficient
impediment to carry out the judgment of the Hon'ble High
Court, I feel it proper to consult the Govt. Pleader, Kalahandi
for his legal opinion to go ahead with the case."
4. Mr. Satapathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits
that the revsional court specifically held that the Petitioner is
entitled to be recorded in respect of the entire land in question.
However, the Tahasildar, Madanpur-Rampur erroneously held
that pursuant to Misc. Case No.811/1982, which was closed on
// 3 //
17th February, 2011 with an observation that Damodar Panda
cannot be given any relief as the field possession was in
accordance with the Hal ROR. On such observation, the
Tahasildar, Madanpur-Rampur held that the order of the
revisional court has been duly complied with and dropped the
proceeding. He further submits that such an observation is
contrary to the materials available on record. The possession of
the case land was taken over by the District Police
Administration on 10th March, 2016, i.e. after initiation of Misc.
Case No.4 of 2016. Had the order of the revisional court been
complied with in time, such a situation would not have occurred.
On the date of the order passed by the revisional court, the
Petitioner was very much in possession over the case land.
Hence, the under Annexure-6 is liable to be set aside and the
Petitioner is entitled to be recorded in respect of entire Khata.
5. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate
for the State referring to the counter affidavit filed by Opposite
Party No.3 submits that the land is in possession of the Police
(Home) Department since 1982. Thus, the contention of the
Petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of the law. There is no
material on record to show that the possession of the land in
question was taken over by the District Police Administration on
10th March, 2016 as alleged. As such, this writ petition is not
maintainable.
6. Taking into consideration the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it
appears that the Tahasildar, Madanpur-Rampur had initiated
Misc. Case No.811/1982 and closed the same on 17th February,
2011 with an observation that Damodar Panda cannot be given
// 4 //
any relief as the field possession was in favour of the Police
(Home) Department. There is no material to the contrary which
would suggest that observation made by the Tahasildar,
Madanpur-Rampur is not correct. Further, issue of taking over
possession by the Police (Home) Department cannot be
adjudicated in a writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution as it requires factual adjudication.
7. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere
with the impugned order under Annexurre-6. Accordingly, the
writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
8. Dismissal of the writ petition shall not be a bar for the
Petitioner to work out her remedy in accordance with law.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
jm
