Orissa High Court
Ashok Kumar Satpathy And vs Bijendra Mohapatra And on 7 January, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
R.S.A. No.347 of 2017
Ashok Kumar Satpathy and ..... Appellants
others
Represented by
Mr.S.P.Mishra,
Sr. Advocate
-versus-
Bijendra Mohapatra and ..... Respondents
others
Represented by
Mr. B. Bhuyan, Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
ORDER
07.1.2025.
Order No.
19. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. S.P.Mishra, learned Senior counsel along with
Mr. Ramesh Agrawal, learned counsel, for the appellants on the
question of admission. Perused the judgments passed by the
lower appellate court as well as the trial court.
3. Considering the submissions and the grounds raised, the
RSA is admitted on the following substantial questions of law;
// 2 //
(i) Whether in view of the concurrent finding of
fact of both the Courts below that the
predecessors of defendants No.1 to 6, the recorded
tenants had executed the sale deed (Ext. 13) in
favour of the then Raja of Athagarh in the year
1887 on 3.4.1987 and Raja had executed the sale
deed (Ext.14) in favour of the predecessors of the
plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule 'A'
property on 16.01.1958 as admitted by defendant
No.4 and husband of Defendant No.5 in Plaint in
T.S. No.36/64 (Ext.16) and Radhanath Bebarta
Pattnaik, Vendor of the plaintiffs in W.S. in T.S.
No.36/64 (Ext. 18), the lower appellate is correct
in holding that the plaintiffs have acquired no
right, title and interest over the suit schedule
property relying on the wrong and illegal entry in
the R.O.R. which does not create or extinguish
any body's title ?
(ii) Whether the lower appellate is correct in
holding that the predecessors of Defendant No.1
to 6 were raiyats and the predecessor of defendant
No.7 were under raiyats in respect of the land in
question relying on the wrong and illegal entries
in the R.O.R. particularly when there is ample
evidence on record to show that the predecessors
of Defendants No.1 to 6 were tenure holder in
// 3 //
respect of the suit property along with other
properties holding more than 33 acres and Raja
had acquired the suit property for cultivation and
thus, Raja was not an under raiyat but was a raiyat
and Raja being in continuous possession of the
suit land since 1887 till publication of R.O.R. of
the year 1912 had become a settled raiyat of the
village and having remained as such for more than
12 years he had acquired occupancy right over the
property in question which is heritable and
transferable?
(iii) Whether the finding of the lower appellate
Court that since Raja of Athagarh had no
permanent Sikim tenancy in respect of the suit
property and he was simply an under raiyat of the
ancestors of defendants No.1 to 6 who were
stitiban raiyats and alienation of the suit property
by Radhanath Bebarta Pattnaik, the grandson of
Raja vide Ext. 14 and the compromise decree
(Ext. 11) passed in F.A. No.50/60 do not confer
title upon the plaintiffs relying on the wrong
entries in R.O.Rs is sustainable when there is
ample evidence on record to prove otherwise that
the Raja on the strength of Ext.13 acquired raiyati
right over the property which was heritable and
transferable and subsequently on the strength of
// 4 //
his valid transfer under Ext. 14 the plaintiffs had
acquired title over the property in question?
4. No notice need be issued to the Respondents as they have
already appeared through counsel. Adequate number of appeal
memo copies be served upon learned counsel appearing for the
other side.
5. L.C.R. be called for.
6. List this matter in the week commencing 10.2.2025 on the
heading 'Admission'.
(Sashikanta Mishra)
AKB Judge
20. 1. Status quo as on date with regard to the suit property shall be
maintained till the next date.
(Sashikanta Mishra)
Judge
Designation: A.D.R.-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
