Sarat Kumar Baik And Others vs Tahasildar
2022 Latest Caselaw 1178 Ori

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                 W.P.(C) No.13832 of 2010

               Sarat Kumar Baik and others               ....         Petitioners
                                                      Mr.S.K. Nayak-2, Advocate

                                           -versus-

               Tahasildar, Kendrapara and                ....          Opp. Parties
               others
                                                              Mr. A.P. Das, ASC

                        CORAM:
                        THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                        JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK
                                     ORDER

Order No. 09.02.2022

10. 1. The Petitioners who are residents of village Nikirai in the district of Kendrapara have filed the present petition challenging the order dated 7th August, 2004 passed by the Tahasildar, Kendrapara in OEA Case No.50 of 1999. They claim that Sabik Plot Nos.2369 and 2370 under Sabik Khata No.880 was recorded in the name of Mani Barik an ancestor of the Petitioners. It is further contended that in the Khata in remark column against the Plot No.2370, the names of the ancestors of Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5, viz., Birakishore Jena and Rajkishore Jena were erroneously recorded as sikim tenant. It is further stated that during consolidation operation the names of the Petitioners have been recorded in the land register under the status of Desabit abhandari jagiri and in final record of right (ROR), the Petitioners names have been recorded under Baybandobasta status.

// 2 //

2. When the Revenue Inspector submitted a report, a suo motu proceedings was started under the Orissa Estate Abolition Act (OEA Act) by the Tahasildar by registering a OEA Case No.4 of 1999. Another suo motu Case No.50 of 1999 was also started for recording the names of Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 in the ROR. By order dated 21st June, 1999, the Tahasildar ordered that the names of Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 be recorded against the land in question in the ROR. Against the above order, the Petitioners filed OEA Revision No.1 of 2000 before the Additional District Magistrate, Kendrapara (ADM). The aforementioned order was set aside by the ADM and the matter was remanded to the Tahasildar for a fresh decision.

3. The Tahasildar then took up both OEA Case Nos.4 and 50 of 1999 together and passed the impugned order directing that the land should be recorded in the name of the Government.

4. The main grievance of the Petitioners in assailing the impugned order is that when the land was recorded as Desabit abhandari jagiri, the OEA Act was not applicable. Learned counsel for the Petitioners seeks to place reliance on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Sadhu Das v. Krupasindhu Das 1972 Vol. 38 CLT 577.

5. A perusal of the impugned order of the Tahasildar reveals that one of the predecessors in interest of the Petitioners Sri Rahas Jena had a dwelling house in the plot and he died in the year 1944 itself. OLR Case No.44/76-77 filed under Sections 4(1) and 4(5) of the OLR Act by his successors was rejected. Importantly Rahas Jena was, in fact, a sikim tenant. It appears

// 3 //

that while Rahas Jena was in possession, Mani Barik under whom the present Petitioners claim title had filed T.S. No.78 of 1924 in the court of Munsif, Kendrapara and the said suit was dismissed on contest. It attained finality. It is on the above ground, the Tahasildar declined to permit the present Petitioners, who claimed to be the successors of Mani Barik to challenge the said judgment.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners points out the impugned order having been passed way back on 17th August, 2004 and there being no stay order of the till date, the Petitioners are still in possession of the said land in question.

6. The Court does not speculate how the Petitioners continue to remain in possession. The fact remains that there is no explanation offered for the inordinate delay in challenging the impugned order of the Tahasildar. The present petition was filed only on 9th August, 2010 i.e. more than six years after the impugned order was passed. Also with order of the Munsif, Kendrapara dismissing T.S. No.78 of 1924 filed by Mani Barik, attaining finality, the Petitioners are estopped from re- agitating the issue of recording their names in the ROR.

7. The Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order of the Tahasildar. The writ petition is dismissed.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge KC Bisoi