Special Secretary To Govt vs Bansidhar Naik
2025 Latest Caselaw 2061 Ori

Orissa High Court

Special Secretary To Govt vs Bansidhar Naik on 3 January, 2025

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                              F.A No.135 of 2000


        Special Secretary to Govt.           ....                       Appellants
        of Orissa & Another
                                                                 Mr. A.R. Das, AGA


                                        -versus-




        Bansidhar Naik                       ....                       Respondent
                                                          Mr. S.P. Mishra, Sr. Adv.
                                               Mr.B. Mishra, Sr. Adv. for Intervener
                                                        Mr.K.K. Mishra, Intervener



                               CORAM:
                  JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
                                         ORDER

03.01.2025 Order No.

36. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard Mr. A.R. Dash, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the Appellants, Mr. B. Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel along with Mr. T.K. Biswal, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 and Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel along with Mr. S. Roy, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 along with Mr.K.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Intervener.

3. The present appeal has been filed inter alia challenging the impugned judgment and decree // 2 //

dtd.30.09.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Judge), Bhubaneswar in T.S. No.382 of 1998.

4. Learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellants contended that seeking declaration of right, title, interest as well as confirmation of possession over the suit land, Respondent No.1 filed T.S. No.382 of 1998 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Judge), Bhubaneswar. The said suit when was allowed vide judgment and decree dtd.30.09.1999, the present appeal was filed by the Appellant-State.

4.1. It is contended that initially vide judgment dtd.30.08.2007 when this Court dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree, appellants being aggrieved approached the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing Civil Appeal No.8512 of 2009. Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dtd.21.04.2022 while setting aside the earlier judgment passed by this Court on 30.08.2007, remanded the appeal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. But it is vehemently contended that Hon'ble Apex Court while remanding the matter for such fresh disposal in accordance with law clearly held that claim of Respondent No.1 basing on the Hata Patta (Ext.1) and Rent Receipt (Ext.2) Series issued by the Ex-Intermediary are not to be relied on while adjudicating the claim of Respondent No.1/Plaintiff in the suit. The view expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the aforesaid issue reads as follows:-

// 3 //

"From the impugned judgment, it is noticed that the respondent (s) -plaintiff (s) have raised their claim mainly on the basis of Hata Patta (Exhibit-1) and rent receipt (Exhibit-2) series issued by the ex-intermediary.

In light of the reported decision of this Court, the issue under consideration stands answered against the respondent(s) -plaintiff (s).

Notably, when the impugned judgment was passed on 30.08.2007, the High Court did not have the benefit of the judgment of this Court, which was pronounced on 20.04.2009.

As a result, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and order and relegate the parties before the High Court for reconsideration of other issues, if any, to be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law.

4.2. It is contended that in view of the finding given by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the claim of Respondent No.1/Plaintiff is to be decided basing on the other available materials save and except Ext.1 and 2.

4.3. It is also contended that since claim of Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 is based on Ext.1 and Ext.2- Series and the suit was so decreed vide the impugned judgment basing on such Ext.1 and Ext.2-Series, in view of the clear findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in its order dtd.21.04.2022, the impugned judgment and decree is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is required to be set aside.

4.4. It is also contended that learned Trial Court while allowing the claim vide the impugned judgment and decree relied on the Hata Patta (Ext.1) and the rent receipts (Ext.2) Series and other consequential documents so exhibited vide

// 4 //

Ext.3 to 14. But since Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that Ext.1 and Ext.2-Series are not to be relied on while deciding the claim of the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 afresh, in absence of those two vital documents, the judgment and decree passed in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 is not sustainable in the eye of law and liable to be set aside.

5. Mr. B. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 also does not dispute the finding of the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to reliance on Ext.1 and Ext.2-Series, not to be taken note of, while deciding the appeal afresh in accordance with law.

5.1. It is however contended that bereft of Ext.1 and Ext.2- Series, learned Trial Court decreed the suit vide the impugned judgment relying on other materials available vide Ext.3 to 14.

5.2. It is accordingly contended that even if Ext.1 and Ext.2-Series are not relied on, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below can be sustained and a fresh decision be taken in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid Civil Appeal. Similar contention as made by learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, was made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 and learned counsel appearing for the Intervener. However, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 contended that Hon'ble Apex Court has not given the finding not to

// 5 //

rely on Ext.1 & 2 and the same can be inferred by this Court from the subsequent findings.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that claim of Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 was decreed vide the impugned judgment and decree dtd.30.09.1999. Initially, this Court vide judgment dtd.30.08.2007 when dismissed the present appeal by confirming the impugned judgment and decree, the appellants herein being aggrieved approached the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.8512 of 2009. Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dtd.21.04.2022 while remanding the matter for disposal of the appeal afresh in accordance with law gave a clear finding that claim of Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 basing on Ext.1 and Ext.2-Series is not to be considered. Hon'ble Apex Court while holding so directed for disposal of the appeal basing on the other issue which may be available to the parties.

6.1. This Court after going through the impugned judgment finds that the suit was decreed vide the impugned judgment and decree basing on Ext.1 and Ext.2-Series and other ancillary documents so exhibited vide Ext.3 to 14. However, in view of the finding of the Hon'ble Apex Court not to rely on Ext.1 and Ext.2-Series and the fact that the suit has been decreed relying on those two vital documents vide Ext.1 and Ext.2-Series, it is the view of this Court that claim of the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 as made in the suit

// 6 //

is required to be decided afresh by the Trial Court without relying on Ext.1 and Ext.2-Series.

6.2. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned judgment and decree dtd.30.09.1999 so passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Judge), Bhubaneswar in T.S. No.382 of 1998. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to the Trial Court for fresh disposal of the suit in accordance with law and the finding of the Hon'ble Apex Court so indicated in its order dtd.21.04.2022 in Civil Appeal No.8512 of 2009.

6.3. However, since the matter is being remitted for fresh trial, it is the view of this Court that all the parties be permitted to lead further evidence both oral and documentary in support of their respective stand. It is also observed that if any application for intervention will be filed by any interested party/purchaser of the suit property, the same shall be decided in accordance with law and taking into account the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court so reflected in order dtd.21.04.2022.

6.4. However, since the suit is of the year 1998, this Court directs learned Trial Court to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible preferably by the end of August, 2025, if there is no other legal impediment. It is further observed that all the parties to the proceeding shall cooperate for such disposal of the suit within the aforesaid time period and none of the parties will be allowed any unnecessary adjournment.

// 7 //

7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the FA stands disposed of.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK