Orissa High Court
Harekrushna Panda & Others vs State Of Odisha & Others on 6 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.12526 of 2021
(Through hybrid mode)
Harekrushna Panda & others .... Petitioners
-versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioners : Mr. P.K. Satapathy, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. A.K. Nanda, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and judgment : 06.02.2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ARINDAM SINHA, J.
1. Petitioners have moved this court for interference with order
dated 25th August, 2018 made by the Tahsildar directing correction
of ROR for the case land to be kept under Abadijogy Anabadi
Khata, after confirmation of the order by the Sub-Collector.
2. Mr. Satapathy, learned advocate appears on behalf of
petitioners and points out from impugned order itself that the
authority found his clients to be legal heirs of the recorded tenant
(RT), as are in possession over the case land. On query from Court
Mr. Satapathy draws attention to circular dated 6th December, 2000
issued by Government of Odisha, Revenue Department, clause (ii)
under paragraph 3. Said clause empowers the officer, nominated by
the Collector, to institute suo motu cases for all the Bebandobasta
holdings, village after village, if not already instituted as mentioned
in the circular.
3. Mr. Satapathy submits, the Bebandobasta status of lands in
occupation was first addressed by the government on issuance of
circular dated 14th March, 1991. He draws attention to order dated
29th December, 1995 issued by the Tahasildar, settling the land in
favour of petitioners on payment of salami along with rent and
cess, with interest till publication in new rates. This was done in
compliance with directions made in said first circular dated 14th
March, 1991. The order of the Tahasildar was subject matter of
notice dated 1st December, 2003 issued by Assistant Consolidation
Officer (OEA Collector) informing approval by Sub-Collector of
the settlement in favour of his clients. He seeks interference.
4. Mr. Nanda, learned advocate, Additional Government
Advocate appears on behalf of State. He submits, status of land in
occupation of petitioners is inchoate. Accordingly, in compliance
of directions made in circular dated 6th December, 2000, there was
initiation of suo motu case against petitioners. He submits, enquiry
revealed petitioners were unable to produce their relation with
possessor of case land on date of vesting. In the circumstances,
impugned order was correctly made. There should not be
interference.
5. It transpires that for settlement of lands, correctly or
incorrectly recorded under status Bebandobasta, there was first
issued, circular dated 14th March, 1991. We have satisfied
ourselves that proceeding in compliance with said circular was
initiated, petitioners were found to be in occupation of the land and
there was settlement of it to them on direction for payment of
salami, rent at then existing rate. Mr. Satapathy submits, the salami
and rent fixed were all paid. There was approval, of the settlement
in favour of petitioners, by the Sub-Collector as required in the
circular.
6. Subsequent circular dated 6th December, 2000 was issued in
reference to aforesaid earlier circular dated 14th March, 1991 and
letter dated 17th June, 1993. We extract and reproduce a sentence
from said circular to demonstrate reason for issuance of the same.
"It is a matter of concern that many such holdings still
continue in inchoate status and people continue to
possess the land without paying any rent for the same."
(emphasis supplied)
Following such reasons for issuance, there was direction to institute
suo motu cases for all Bebandobasta holdings. We reproduce below
the direction passages as in paragraph 2 and clause (ii) under
paragraph 3, of said circular.
"2. xxxx Considering the gravity of the matter and
loss of revenue, Government desires that a special drive
for a period of one year should be taken up with effect
from the date of issue of this circular to wipe out the
bebandobasta status from the Record-of-Rights. For this
purpose in supersession of all previous circulars
including the one cited under reference on the subject, the
following guide-lines are given which should be followed
meticulously.
3. Xxxx (ii) The Officer so nominated should
institute suo motu cases for all the bebandobasta holdings
village after village, if not already instituted, during the
first three months of the drive. For the purpose of
instituting the cases a report from the concerned R.I. of
mina assigned with the duty should be furnished
separately for each holding and each report should be
registered as a ...................... furnish his report for
such holdings in a village at a line the cases should be
registered in the case register by assigning case nos.
chronologically, as far as practicable. Xxxx"
(emphasis supplied)
7. Superseding purpose empowering suo motu initiation of
cases in respect of land under Bebandobasta status was, existing
inchoate status of occupation of land without payment of rent.
Petitioners stand recorded as in possession of the land in
Bebandobasta status. There is no dispute that they have paid the
salami and rent since, impugned order itself says that the suo motu
case was initiated on notice of the file put up for fixation of fair and
equitable rent. In the circumstances, impugned order made on
reopening the case suo motu, was without jurisdiction as circular
dated 6th December, 2000 did not apply to petitioners. On the
contrary, clause (vii) under paragraph 4 of aforesaid first circular
dated 14th March, 1991 says, establishment of claim entitled
settlement of the land in raiyati status. Paragraph 11 in said circular
requires disposal of the cases with prior approval of the Sub-
Collector. Petitioners had the case started by the Tahsildar,
pursuant to circular dated 14th March, 1991, in respect of land in
their occupation, resulting on settlement upon them, which also
stood approved by the Sub-Collector
8. Impugned order is set aside and quashed.
9. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
(S.K. Mishra)
Judge
P.Pradhan
