Orissa High Court
Khageswar Padhi & Others vs The Commissioner on 11 March, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.19220 of 2018
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
***
Khageswar Padhi & Others ... Petitioner
-VERSUS-
The Commissioner, Land Records
and Settlement & Others ... Opposite Parties
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioners : Mr. H.C.Sahoo,Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. P.K.Mohanty, ASC (for the O.P. No.1)
Mr.M.K.Pati,Advocate (For the O.P.Nos.2 to 4)
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Date of Hearing: 25.02.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 11.03.2025
J UDGMENT
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of the India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners
challenging the final order dated 10.04.2018 (Annexure-1) passed
in Revision Petition No.1039 of 2005 by the Opposite Party No.1
(Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack)
praying for quashing the Annexure-1.
2. The petitioners and Opposite Parties of this writ petition
were the petitioners and Opposite Parties respectively in revision
petition No.1039 of 2005 before the Opposite Party No.1.
In that revision petition No.1039 of 2005, the petitioners
had prayed for correction of the Hal R.o.R. in respect of the Plot
No.499, 500 under Hal Khata No.1090 corresponding to Sabik
Plot No.604, 604/3758, 599, 599/3759 and 607 under Sabik
Khata Nos.195 and 703 respectively in order to delete the names
of the Opposite Parties of that revision from the Hal R.o.R.
No.1090 stating that, Sabik Khata No.703 and 195 were recorded
in the name of their predecessors in the year 1928. Out of all the
Sabik recorded tenants, two sabik recorded tenants i.e. Gouri
Padhi and Kangali Padhi died issueless, but, only the successors
of one of the Sabik recorded tenant Fakir Padhi are possessing
the said properties. The petitioners are the successors of Fakir
Padhi. The Opposite Parties are strangers to the properties under
Sabik Khata Nos.703 and 195 and in the said properties, they
(opposite Parties) have no title and possession. During Hal
Settlement, the Settlement Authorities wrongly recorded the said
case land in favour of the Opposite Parties, for which, the names
of the Opposite Parties are required to be deleted from the Hal
R.o.R. and after deletion of their names from the Hal R.o.R., the
names of the petitioners are required to be inserted.
3. The Opposite Parties objected to the above claims of the
petitioners in the revision before the Opposite Party No.1 stating
that, one of the Sabik recorded tenant i.e. Gouri Padhi had not
died issueless, but, he had two sons. Out of his two sons, one son
died issueless. His another son was Raghunath Padhi. The said
Raghunath Padhi executed and registered a sale deed on dated
23.09.1942 in favour of the father of the Opposite parties i.e.
Nanda Kishore Panda in respect of his share in the case land.
Because, Gouri Padhi and Kangali Padhi had 25% share each,
whereas, Fakir Padhi (predecessor of the petitioners) had 50%
share.
4. On the basis of the said sale deed, the Hal R.o.R of the case
land has been recorded in the name of the Opposite Parties, in
which, the petitioners has no interest. For which, the revision of
the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
5. After hearing from both the sides, the Opposite Party No.1
dismissed that revision petition No.1039 of 2005 of the
petitioners thereof as per order dated 10.04.2018 (Annexure- 1)
assigning the reasons that, on verification of records, it is found
that, Gouri Padhi had died leaving behind her son Narahari
Padhi. After the death of the Gouri Padhi, her share in the suit
properties devolved upon his son Narahari Padhi. Subsequently,
Narahari Padhi entered into spiritualism. For which, the spiritual
Guru of Narahari Padhi named him as Raghunath Padhi @
Adhikari Narahari Das. The said Raghunath Padhi @ Adhikari
Narahari Das sold his share in the case land to the father of the
Opposite Parties i.e. Nanda Kishore Panda executing and
registering sale deed No.6321 dated 23.09.1942 after receiving
due consideration amount and delivered possession thereof.
Subsequently after vesting of the suit properties with the
Government, a OEA case No.2572 of 1964 under Sections 6 and
7 of the OEA Act was initiated against Nanda Kishore Panda and
in such OEA case, the rent of the suit properties was fixed in the
name of the father of the opposite Parties i.e. Nanda Kishore
Panda.
Thereafter, in the Hal R.o.R., the suit properties have been
recorded in the name of the Opposite Parties, but, the petitioners
of the revision petition challenged to the sale deed dated
23.09.1942 executed by Raghunath Padhi in favour of the father
of the petitioner in respect of the case land stating that, the said
sale deed is void and they also raised dispute in respect of the
title and possession of the Opposite parties over the case land.
The Opposite Party No.1 as per its final order dated
10.04.2018 (Annexure 1) dismissed to the revision petition
No.1039 of 2005 of the petitioners assigning the reasons that,
whether the sale deed dated 23.09.1942 in question in favour of
the father of the Opposite Parties is void or voidable is a matter of
declaration by the Competent Civil Court, but, not by the
Opposite Party No.1 in the revision.
6. On being dissatisfied with the said order of dismissal to the
Revision Petition No.1039 of 2005 of the petitioners passed by the
Opposite Party No.1, the petitioners challenged the same by filing
this writ petition.
7. I have already heard from the learned Counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.2
to 4 and the learned Additional Standing counsel for the Opposite
Party No.1.
8. It is forthcoming from the impugned order dated
10.04.2018 (Annexure 1) passed by the Opposite Party No.1 in
revision petition No.1039 of 2005 that, the petitioners have
challenged to the sale deed dated 23.09.1942 executed by the
Raghunath Padhi @ Adhikari Narahari Das in favour of the
father of the Opposite Parties i.e. Nanda Kishore Panda on the
ground that, the above said sale deed is void and the Opposite
Parties have no title and possession in the case land.
9. Now, the question arises,
when the title and possession of the case
land is under dispute between the parties, then at
this juncture, whether the order of dismissal of the
Revision Petition No.1039 of 2005 passed by the
Opposite Party No.1 assigning the reasons that,
whether the sale deed in question is void or
voidable is a matter of declaration by a Competent
Civil Court, but, not by him (Opposite Party No.1)
is sustainable under law?
On this aspect the propositions of law has already been
clarified by the Hon'ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of
the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between The State of Gujarat
Vrs. Patil Raghav Natha & Others reported in
1969 (2) S.C.C. 187 that, when the title of an
occupant is disputed by any party before the
Collector or the Commissioner and the dispute is
serious, the appropriate course for the Collector or
the Commissioner would be to refer the parties to a
competent Court and not to decide the question of
title himself against the occupant.
(ii) In a case between Mithilesh Devi Vrs.
State of U.P. & Others reported in 2023 (3)
Civ.C.C. 351 (Allhabad) that, Mutation on the
basis of registered sale deed cannot be set aside or
recalled unless registered sale deed executed in
favour of petitioner is set aside in any legal
proceeding.
10. Here in this writ petition at hand, when, the title and
possession in the property in question is under dispute
between the parties and the matter relating to the void or
voidableness of the sale deed dated 23.09.1942 in question
executed by Raghunath Padhi @ Adhikari Narahari Das in
favour of the father of the Opposite Parties i.e. Nanda Kishore
Panda is also under dispute between the parties and when as
per the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Courts
and Apex Court, the matter i.e. dispute relating to title and
possession in the case land can only be decided by a
Competent Civil Court, but not by the Commissioner and
when it is the duties of the Revenue Authorities in such
disputed matters to refer the parties to the Competent Civil
Court for adjudication of their such disputes between the
parties relating to title and possession in the case land and
when, the Opposite Party No.1 (Commissioner, Land Records
and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack) has dismissed the Revision
Petition No.1039 of 2005 (Annexure 1) of the petitioners
assigning the reasons that, the matter in dispute between the
parties concerning the title, possession and genuineness of
the sale deed in question is not adjudiciable before him, but,
same is adjudiciable by the Competent Civil Court, then at
this juncture, the aforesaid reasons assigned by the Opposite
Party No.1 for the dismissal of the Revision Petition No.1039
of 2005 as per order vide Annexure 1 cannot be held
unreasonable.
So, the question of making interference with the same
through this writ petition filed by the petitioner does not arise.
As such, there is no merit in the writ petition of the
petitioners. The same must fail.
11. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is
dismissed and disposed of finally on contest referring the
parties to approach the Competent Civil Court for
adjudication of their inter se disputes relating to title,
possession and the nature of the sale deed dated 23.09.1942
in question in respect of the case land.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
11.03.2025// Binayak Sahoo
Jr. Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
