Orissa High Court
Tipan Dibakar Reddy vs Registrar on 30 January, 2023
ORISSA HIGH COURT : C U T T A C K
W.P.(C) No.16375 of 2012
An application under Article 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, 1950
Tipan Dibakar Reddy : Petitioner(s)
-Versus-
Registrar, Berhampur University & Ors. : Opposite Party(s)
For Petitioner : M/s. S. Patra, R.K. Sahoo,
S. Rath
For Opposite Party No.1 : M/s. B.S. Mishra (2),
A.R. Mishra
For Opposite Party Nos.2 to 4 : Mr. S.P. Panda,
Addl. Govt. Adv.
JUDGMENT
CORAM :
JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
Date of hearing & judgment : 30.01.2023
1. Heard the submissions of learned counsel for respective parties.
2. This writ petition involves a challenge to the order of the
competent authority passed in CRP No.91 of 2006 i.e. a proceeding
U/s.37(I) of the O.C.H. & P.F.L., 1972 Act vide Annexure-7.
3. Taking this Court to the claim of the Berhampur University in the
application at Annexure-1 and the objection by way of memo of written
notes of submission of Opposite Party Nos.3 & 4 therein in Annexure-2,
// 2 //
learned counsel for Petitioner submitted that the 37(I) authority should
not have taken a decision without taking into consideration the
acquisition notification and any correspondence handing over the
property involved to the University. Taking this Court to the report of the
Consolidation Officer in Annexure-3 an attempt is also made by Mr.
Rath, learned Counsel for Petitioner to establish that the impugned order
is passed in non-consideration of the report.
4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the University-O.P.1 on the other
hand in his opposition to the claim of Mr. Rath, learned counsel for
Petitioner submits that once the application before the Commissioner
brings specific case giving specific indication of the acquisition
notification to the delivery of possession notification and further if such
development is disputed by the adversary, burden of establishing such
aspect shifts to the party in dispute.
It is, in the above circumstance, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for
the University prays for dismissal of the writ petition since the present
Petitioner himself fails to establish his case before the authority below.
5. Mr. Panda, learned State Counsel for Opposite Party Nos.2 to 4 in
his part adopts the submission made by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for
the University-O.P.1.
6. Considering the submissions made by the parties, this Court finds,
the University in their application U/s.37 of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act,
1972 has made the following claim:-
"2. It is submitted that on 25-04-1970 the Government
delivered possession of the scheduled land, i.e., Ac.34.34
situated in Ramachandrapur Mouza/village. This has been
acquired under declaration No. 51122-R, dated 18-08-1969 and
published in the extraordinary Orissa Gazette No. 1379, dated
19-08-1969 and same was received by the petitioner on 25-04-
// 3 //
1970 in Form No. 17. Again on 11th December 1971 the
Government delivered possession of the schedule land i.e.,
Ac.41.38 as described below situated in Village
Ramachandrapur, Tahasil Berhampur in the District Ganjam.
This has been acquired under declaration No. 51122-LA-161/69,
Ganjam-R, Dated 18-08-1969 and published in the
Extraordinary Orissa Gazette No.1379, dated 19-08-1969 of
Revenue department for construction of Berhampur University
as per Land Acquisition Officer Memo No.4427/LA, dated 24-
09-1971 and same was received by the petitioner on 11-12-1971
in Form No.17, which is morefully described in the schedule of
land given below. The Opposite Party No.1 - Tahasildar,
Berhampur had also issued patta in favour of the petitioner -
Berhampur University under Sabik Khata No.465/85, Plot
No.342, Ac. 0.543 decimals.
3. The Land Acquisition Collector, Ganjam was pleased to
acquire land for the establishment of Berhampur University the
land of the Government of Orissa, this land covered by Sabik
Khata No. 465/85, Plot No. 342, Ac. 0.543 dec. and other
acquired land were delivered to the Berhampur University and
the Berhampur University after taking possession of the entire
lands fenced the entire land with concrete pillars and barbed
wires. Bherhampur University, the petitioner is in physical and
continuous and uninterrupted possession of the lands from the
date of taking possession of the land from the Government,
having its office buildings, Class Rooms, Libraries, Student
Hostels and Staff Quarters, etc."
7. The University had also indicated the schedule of land as appearing
at page 11 of the brief, which reads as follows:-
SCHEDULE OF LAND
Sabik Khata No. 465/85 Hal Khata No.312
Extent. Ac.0.543dec. Extent Ac.0.543dec.
Mouza Ramchandrapur Mouza Ramchandrapur
Tahasil Berhampur Tahasil Berhampur
District Ganjam District Ganjam
Berhampur
// 4 //
8. Answering to the same Opposite Party Nos.3 & 4 therein filing the
written submission objected the claim of the applicant through paragraph
nos.2 & 3 therein, which reads as follows:-
"2. With great respect these opp.parties submits that, the
suit R.O.R., finally published on 24.04.1995 vide Chaka No.226,
Chaka Plot No.637, Ac.0.543 in Hal Khata No.312 stands recorded
in the name of T.Parsaya Reddy (O.P.2), T.Loknath Reddy (O.P.3)
both are the sons of late. T.Madhab Rao and T.Erama Reddy
W/o.late T.Madhab Rao. In last settlement records, the
corresponding Sabik Plot No.342, Ac.0.543 in Sabik Khata No.307
stood recorded in the name of T.Madhab Rao alone i.e., the
predecessor of present recorded tenants (O.P.No.3 to 5).
3. These opp.parties are nothing to say about the Govt.
Notification regarding acquisition of land for Berhampur University.
But the opp.parties denying the plaint allegation concerning to
acquisition of suit plots by the land acquisition officer for
Berhampur University. As because the suit Sabik Survey No.342 is
not at all acquired by the land acquisition authorities for which the
said suit Sabik Survey No.342 is not mentioned in the schedule of
land acquired under the Declaration No.51122-LA-161/69-Ganjam-
R, dated 18.08.1969 of the Revenue Department. Hence, the Land
Acquisition Officer memo No.4427/LA, dated 24.09.1971 as averred
by the petitioner in the revision petition is not binding upon the
opp.parties no.3 to 5. Moreover, the issuance of R.O.R. by the
Tahasildar, Berhampur in favou of the petitioner, vide khata
No.465/85, Plot No.342, Ac.0.543 is erroneous and contrary to the
statutory provisions and no title accrued in favour of the petitioner,
since the suit Sabik Survey No.342 has never acquired by the
competent authority and the petitioner has miserably failed to adduce
any cogent evidence to that effect due to obvious reasons."
It is made here clear that even though present Petitioner was
appearing there as an Opposite Party, but did not file any response. Thus
first of all Petitioner since has no involvement in spite of notice, cannot
be held to be a party aggrieved.
9. It is here keeping in view the claim and the counter claim of the
parties, this Court entering into the discussions and findings in the
revision involved finds, even though the relatives of Petitioner herein
being an objector challenged the acquisition aspect involving the disputed
// 5 //
land, however, did not able to either bring such notification or any
material to establish the case otherwise and to satisfy that the Petitioner
along with others were still the owner of the property with right, title and
interest to them. Party in contest there even does not bring any litigation.
In the process this Court finds, for absence of above the Commissioner
was constrained to proceed in terms of the materials available on record
and such order cannot be found to be faulted.
10. In the circumstance, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned
order requiring to be interfered with.
11. Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No cost.
...............................
(Biswanath Rath)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 30th day of January, 2023//
Ayaskanta Jena, Senior Stenographer
