Sweta Kumar Laha vs State Of Orissa And Others

Misc. Case No.21283 of 2017

For the reasons stated, the I.A. for substitution vice deceased Petitioner is allowed.

The legal representatives of the Petitioner as indicated in the schedule of the I.A. are brought on record.

The consolidated cause title incorporating the substitution be filed in course of the day.

W.P.(C) No.10279 of 2003

The challenge in the present petition is to an order dated 11th July 2003 passed by the Board of Revenue, Orissa in OEA Revision Case No.76 of 2002 filed by the Petitioner-Sweta Kumar Laha.

Although the revision petition was disposed of by the Board of Revenue by remanding the matter to the OEA Collector, the Petitioners are aggrieved by the following observations in paragraph 8.1 and 8.2 which read as under:

“8.1. The most point of this case is whether the Tenancy Ledger in respect of the suit land, although sthitiban in origin and merged into sub proprietorship later, was prepared on the basis of a fraudulent vian (Ekpadia) submitted to the Revenue functionaries, as sub-proprietary rights vest in the State along with the vesting of the estate. This requires verification of the original Tahasil records and the vian (Ekpadia) referred to by both the subordinate courts. Secondly, the existence and continuance of the School since 1953 require field-probe along with verification of documents, since the vesting has taken place after 1953.

8.2. The points specified in the preceding sub-paragraphs have to be thrashed out by the OEA Collector and, after providing adequate opportunity to be heard to all the parties concerned (including the managing body of the School), the finding has to be arrived at.”

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners States that while the Petitioners have no objection to the OEA Collector examining the entire matter, he should not proceed on the basis that it was the present Petitioner who was responsible for the vian/Ekpadia found to be fraudulent by the Member, Board of Revenue. According to him, the OEA Collector should examine the entire issue without any preconceived notion of who may have been responsible for the submission of a fraudulent vian/Ekpadia.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court clarifies that it will be open to the OEA Collector to examine the entire issue including all documents without any pre-determination as to who may be the person producing the documents which have been found to be fraudulent. That has to emerge as a part of the enquiry to be conducted by the OEA Collector. Till the disposal of the case by the OEA Collector, status quo as on today shall continue.

With the above clarification, the impugned order of the Board of Revenue is not interfered with and the writ petition is disposed of. The LCR be retuned forthwith.

Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

…………………..