Brundaban Patnaik vs Commissioner, Land Record and Settlement and Others

Heard Shri Behuria for the petitioner, Shri K. Patnaik. learned Additional Government Advocate, for opposite parties 1 and 2 and Shri N. Panda for opposite party No. 3.

The petitioner has filed this writ application challenging the correctness of the order dated 22.9.1997 of the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Orissa, Cuttack in R.P. Case No. 6774 of 1996 (Annexure-1). By the impugned order the Commissioner has directed the Tahasildar to take up the case under para 17 (1) of the Mutation Manual and verify the sale deed of the petitioner to know his legal entitlements. The Commissioner has observed that the plot in question be remeasured alongwith the suit Hal Plot No. 225 and the records be corrected if found necessary. The Tahasildar has also been further directed to ignore the possession of any excess area, if found, without valid title.

According to the petitioner, he has been in possession of land measuring Ac. 0.050 decimals uninterruptedly without any hindrance from any quarter although in the registered sale deed No. 8486 dated 6.10.1970, the extent of the land was noted as Ac. 0.041 decimals. In support of the petitioner''s stand that he has been in possession of land in excess of the land mentioned in the sale deed, the learned counsel for the petitioner brings to our notice the order of the Asst. Settlement Officer dated 2.9.1983 passed in Objection Case No. 1873/330 which was filed at the instance of one Bijoy Kumar Pattnaik. In the said order, the Asst. Settlement Officer has directed to record Ac. 0.047 decimals in place of Ac. 0.050 decimals. The Commissioner, as submitted by Shri Behuria, without taking into account the aforesaid order has illegally directed the Tahasildar to ignore petitioner''s possession of excess area. Shri Panda appearing for Muncipal Corporation submits that there are documents which would show the petitioner is in possession of land less than Ac. 0.041 decimels.

Considering the submission of the counsel for parties, we dispose of this writ application with an observation that the Tahasildar while taking up of the case under para 17 (1) of the Mutation Manual, as indicated by the Commissioner, will consider the aforesaid order of the Assistant Settlement Officer and pass order according to law after hearing the parties concerned. It may be stated that we are not expressing any opinion on the merit of the claim of the petitioner.

Urgent certified copy of the order, if applied for, may be granted by tomorrow.