Khagendra Naik vs Additional Commissioner Settlement & Consolidation Kalahandi & Others

Sashikanta Mishra, J

The petitioner questions the correctness of order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Kalahandi in S.R.P. No.546 of 2015.

The facts of the case, briefly stated are that the petitioner and the proforma Opposite Party purchased land measuring Ac.0.71 dec from one Chitrasen Naik by virtue of Registered Sale Deed No.2054 dated 19.12.1997 on a consideration of Rs.22,500/- and they were put in physical possession of the land after actual field measurement. During the settlement operation, the petitioner and the proforma Opposite Party submitted application for recording of the purchased land in their names, which was allowed but the land was recorded in a separate khata with the area being reduced to Ac. 0.61dec. instead of Ac. 0.71 dec with the remaining land being recorded in the name of the vendor Chitrasen Naik in a separate khata. The petitioner therefore, filed revision under Section 15(b) of the Orissa Survey & Settlement Act, 1958 (OSS Act) before the Additional Commissioner with prayer to enhance the area of his land as purchased by them. Notice of the revision was issued and the matter was heard in the presence of the Opposite Parties and the revision petitioners.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the report of the Tahasildar, Dharmagarh and Additional Sub-Collector, Settlement Bhawanipatna, learned Additional Commissioner allowed the revision in part by directing recording of only Ac.0.01

dec. of land instead of Ac.0.10 dec. According to the petitioner, such order is completely erroneous being beyond the prayer of the petitioner.

Pursuant to notice, only Opposite Party No.3 appeared in person. The State counsel represented the Additional Commissioner.

Heard Mr. A. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Bhabani Shankar Naik, (O.P. No.3) in person.

Mr. Routray would argue that the Additional Commissioner committed error in directing adjustment of land from one plot to other ignoring the fact that the purchased area of the petitioner and proforma Opposite Party is Ac. 0.71 dec. As a result, instead of directing recording of Ac.0.71 dec. from out of the purchased plots, learned Commissioner directed adjustment by bringing Ac. 0.03 dec from Hal Plot No.1513/3251 and Ac.0.02 from Hal Plot No.1512 in the name of the petitioner and transfer of Ac. 0.01 dec from Hal Plot No.1512/3250.

Thus, the petitioner’s grievance remains unresolved.

Mr. Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that a civil suit is pending in relation to one of the plots purchased by the petitioner and the proforma Opposite Party. Moreover, the Tahasildar found that the vendor Chitrasen Naik had sold more land than what was available in one of the plots, namely Sabik Plot No.1107. He therefore, submits that this is a civil dispute and since the same is pending before the civil Court, in the absence of any order being passed, the Additional Commissioner rightly allowed the revision in part by way of adjustment of land from different plots.

Mr. Bhabani Shankar Naik (O.P. No.3) submits that the dispute relating to the extent of land is pending before the civil Court and therefore, the revisional Court rightly allowed only that portion of the land, which is not involved in the civil suit and is in possession of the petitioner and the proforma Opposite Party.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, including the impugned order, this Court finds that as per R.S.D. dated 19.12.1997, the petitioner and the proforma Opposite Party purchased Ac. 0.71 dec of land from its recorded owner Chitrasen Naik. The details of the purchased land are as follows:-

Sabik Plot No.1058-Ac. 0.57 dec Sabik Plot No.1107-Ac. 0.12 dec

Sabik Plot No.1108-Ac. 0.02 dec

All these plots are recorded in Sabik Khata No.51.

In the Hal-Settlement operation Sabik Khata No.51 was recorded as Hal Khata No.72, Sabik Plot No.1058 was recorded as Hal Plot No.1368/3235 measuring Ac.57dec., Sabik Plot No.1107 was recorded as Hal Plot No.1513 measuring Ac.0.03 dec. and Sabik Plot No.1108 was recorded as Hal Plot No.1512/3250 measuring Ac.0.01 dec. Thus, the extent of land was reduced by Ac.0.10 dec. with Sabik Plot No.1107 being reduced by Ac.0.09 dec. and Sabik Plot No.1108 being reduced by Ac.0.01 dec.

Perusal of the impugned order reveals that after taking note of the above, learned Additional Commissioner referred to the reports of the Tahasildar, Dharmagarh and Additional Sub-Collector, Settlement, Bhawanipatna. It was found that the actual area of Sabik Plot No.1107 is Ac.0.08 and not Ac.0.12dec. Thus, there was short fall of Ac. 0.04 in comparison between the record and field measurement. Out of the said Ac.0.08 dec., an area of Ac.0.02dec was sold by the petitioner and proforma Opposite Party to another person namely, Jaduram Naik, who is in possession over the said land. Additionally, Mr. Jaduram Nayak is in possession over the Ac. 0.03dec land corresponding to Hal Plot No.1513/3251, which is wrongly recorded in the name of Minaketan Naik. Said land was actually possessed by the petitioner. The petitioner is in possession over Ac. 0.02 dec in Plot No.1512 but not in possession over Ac. 0.01 recorded in his name. The civil suit bearing No.207 of 2020 of the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dharmagarh pertains to Hal Plot No.1512. On such facts, the learned Additional Commissioner directed recording of the land in favour of the petitioner by adjustment from the connected plots.

This Court finds nothing wrong in such direction for the reason that the problem appears to have its genesis in the sale of more land by the petitioner’s vendor than what was actually available with him. So, it is for him to work out his remedy against the vendor that may be available in law. Secondly, the civil suit also relates to a portion of the land i.e., Hal Plot No.1512 in Hal Khata No.125, which the petitioner also claims to be recorded in his name as per the schedule to the revision petition filed by him. Since the civil suit is pending before the competent Court of law, it would not be proper for this Court to give any conclusive finding as regards the claim of the petitioner. This Court also finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

For the foregoing reasons therefore, the writ application is dismissed being devoid of merit.