@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Shri K.R. Mohapatra, J.—The petitioners in this writ petition assails the order dated 31.10.2000 passed by the learned Addl. District Magistrate (Revenue), Keonjhar in O.E.A. Lease Revision Case No. 9 of 1999, filed by petitioners 1 and 2 (Annexure-6) whereby Addl. District Magistrate (Revenue) has confirmed the original order dated 9.6.1988 passed by the Tahasildar, Anandpur in O.E.A. Lease Case No. 211 of 1983 (Annexure-3) and subsequent appellate order 26.3.1999 by Sub-Collector, Anandpur in O.E.A. Appeal Case No. 2 of 1998 (Annexure-5).
2. The case of the petitioners as revealed from the pleadings in the writ petition is that the case land appertaining to Plot No. 2267 (Part), Khata No. 148 measuring an area of Ac. 0.37 decimals out of Ac. 0.50 decimals of village Tarimul in the district of Ganjam was "Niskar Barbar Jagir'' of the predecessors of the petitioners for rendering the service of Barbar to the Ex-Ruler of Keonjhar. The said land vested in the State on 23.8.2002. After vesting of the land, the petitioners could not apply for settlement of the land under Section 8(A) of the Act in the year, 1975 for which R.O.R. in respect of the case land was published in their name in ''Bebandabasta'' Status (unsettled). In the current settlement, the Sabik Plot No. 2267 was bifurcated into Plot No.3618 (Ac. 0.06 decimals), Plot No. 3619 (Ac. 0.02 decimals), Plot No. 3620 (Ac. 0.03 decimals), 3621 (Ac.0.03 decimals), Plot No. 3622 (Ac.0.10 decimals) and Plot No. 3623 (Ac. 0.13 decimals), total extent of Ac. 0.37 decimals. Subsequently, the Tahasildar, Anandpur (opposite party no. 4) initiated a suo motu O.E.A. Lease Case No. 112 of 1983 under the guidelines issued by the Board of Revenue under the instruction of the State Government vide Letter No. 867/LR dated 7.2.1977. Although the specific direction was issued by the Tahasildar, Anandpur, to issue notice to the recorded tenants in occupation of the case land, no notice, as per law, was served on the petitioners. However, the petitioner no. 2 appeared on 17.5.1983 before the Tahasildar, Anandpur, but to the utter dismay of the petitioners, the Tahasildar, Anandpur conducted the proceeding in most irregular manner. The case record was not taken up for a period of more than five years and suddenly on 9.6.1998 (Annexure-3), the Tahasildar, Anandpuropposite party no. 4, by a cryptic order, directed to keep the case land in Government Khata after taking over possession under Section 5(h) of the O.E.A. Act, which was without jurisdiction. The Tahasildar, Anandpur while adjudicating the matter did not at all look into the materials available on record. Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred O.E.A. Appeal No. 2 of 1998 before the Sub-Collector, Anandpur (opposite party no. 3). The Sub-Collector though held that there was procedural irregularities in the orders passed by the opposite party no.4 under Annexure-3, but he held that the Tahasildar, Anandpur, has rightly proceeded under Section 5(h) of the O.E.A. Act and accordingly, dismissed the appeal by his order dated 26.3.1993 (Annexure-5). Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 thereafter preferred a revision before the Addl. District Magistrate (Revenue), Keonjhar-opposite party no. 2. He discussed the case of contesting parties thread bare and came to a categorical conclusion that the Tahasildar, Anandpur, has conducted himself in a most irregular manner in dealing with O.E.A. Lease Case No. 112 of 1983. However, taking into consideration the report of the R.I. available on record to the effect that one Natabar Mohanty (opposite party no.5) was in possession over the case land and the land had been vested in the Government Khata after abolition of Bhandari Jagir, he directed the land to be retained in Government Khata. Accordingly, he dismissed the revision by his order dated 31.10.2000 (Annexure-6). Hence, this writ petition has been filed.
3. The opposite parties 2 to 4 filed their counter affidavits justifying their action in passing the impugned orders under Annexures-3, 5 and 6. It is further contended that the petitioners failed to prove that they were in Khas possession of the case land on the date of vesting, which is the basic requirement for settlement of the case land in favour of the petitioners. The impugned orders are legal and justified. Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. The opposite party no. 5 filed his counter affidavit stating that he was in possession over the case land for more than 50 years and such possession is evident from the report of the Revenue Inspector, who had conducted the field enquiry being directed by the Tahasildar, Anandpur in O.E.A. Lease Case No. 112 of 1983. The petitioners were never in possession of the case land. Further, the O.E.A. Lease Case No. 112 of 1983 was disposed of on 9.6.1983 and the petitioners after long lapse of ten years filed O.E.A. Appeal No. 2 of 1998 challenging the said order without filing any petition for condonation of delay. The statutory period of limitation for filing of the appeal is 30 days from the date of the order of Tahasildar. The petitioners at no point of time had made any application for settlement of the case land in their favour. The Tahasildar, Anandpur without any authority initiated a suo motu case (O.E.A. Lease No. 112 of 1983) for settlement of the case land in favour of the petitioners. However, taking into consideration that the petitioners were not in possession over the case land and the opposite party no. 5 was in possession over the case land for last 50 years, he directed to retain the case land in Government Khata after taking over possession under Section 5(h) of the O.E.A. Act. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. It appears from Annexure-3 that a suo motu proceeding for settlement of the case land was initiated by the Tahasildar, Anandpur vide order dated 7.5.1983 and he directed to issue proclamation inviting objection. Further, notice was directed to be issued to the recorded tenants and persons in occupation to adduce documentary evidence in support of their case. Thereafter, the case was posted to different dates and on 23.5.1983, the Revenue Inspector submitted a report that one Natabar Mohanty (opposite party no. 5) was in possession over the case land. Accordingly, the Tahasildar, Anandpur by his order dated 23.5.1983 directed to issue notice to the opposite party no. 5 requiring him to appear on 7.6.1983. However, no order was passed on that date and on 9.6.1988, the Tahasildar, Anandpur passed an order to retain the case land in Government Khata after taking over possession under Section 5(h) of the O.E.A. Act.
6. Referring to Annexure-2 of the writ petition, which is a copy of the proclamation, Mr. Mantry, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though suo motu case was initiated on 7.5.1983, in fact, the concerned Peon made an endorsement in the said notice that he had made proclamation on 2.5.1983 i.e. 5 days before the suo motu case was initiated. According to him, no proclamation, as per law, has been made and no notice to the recorded tenants, as directed vide order dated 7.5.1983 in O.E.A. Lease Case No. 112 of 1983, has been issued to the recorded tenants. Thus, the impugned order under Anenxure-3 and subsequent orders under Annexures-5 and 6 confirming the same are illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law.
7. Miss Dhalsamant, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 5 strenuously refuted the said submission and produced a certified copy of the proclamation purported to have been issued as per direction of Tahasildar, Anandpur and submitted that the said proclamation was made on 7.5.1983 and not 2.5.1983 as contended by the petitioners. In fact, the certified copy filed by Miss Dhalsamant, learned counsel in course of hearing reveals that the concerned Peon had made an endorsement that he had made the proclamation on 7.5.1983. However, order by Addl. District Magistrate, Keonjhar under Anenxure-6 depicts a different picture. It reveals that the proclamation was made on 3.5.1983. Thus, there is a serious dispute with regard to the date of proclamation, which is vital for adjudication of the O.E.A. Lease Case No. 112 of 1983 for settlement of the land.
8. The Tahasildar, Anandpur (opposite party no. 4) has dealt with the matter in a manner unknown to the sound principles of justice. Violation of principles of natural justice in dealing with the matter is apparent from the case record and the same is also confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities respectively in their orders under Annexures-5 and 6. The only ground on which the case land was not settled with the petitioners is that they were never in possession over the case land on the date of vesting. As it appears, no enquiry has been made to that effect. The case record further reveals that the concerned R.I. being directed by Tahasildar, Anandpur conducted a field enquiry and submitted a report to the effect that the opposite party no. 5 was in possession over the case land on the date he made the enquiry. We are constrained to note that the requirement of law is otherwise. The enquiry ought to have been made to find out whether the petitioners or their predecessors were in actual possession over the case land on the date of vesting. It appears that the impugned orders under Annexures-3, 5 and 6 have been passed solely on the basis of the field enquiry report submitted by the concerned R.I., which has not been done in accordance with law. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders under Annexures-3, 5 and 6 are not sustainable in law.
9. In view of the discussions made above, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned orders under Annexures-3, 5 and 6 and remit the matter back to Tahasildar, Anandpur for de novo adjudication strictly in accordance with law, which we direct. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, but in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
Vinod Prasad, J.—I agree.
