CUTTACK, India, May 26 -- Orissa High Court issued the following order on April 23:

1. The petitioners call in question the correctness of order dated 27.06.2009 and 29.04.2011 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha in OSS Case No. 1612 of 2003 and Misc. Case No. 11/2009.

2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the land in question that is, appertaining to Sabik Plot No. 995 under Sabik Khata No. 579 measuring Ac.1.156 decimals originally belonged to one Banshidhar Mohanty. He sub-divided the plot and sold different portions at different times. He also transferred a portion shown as a road in favour of the Executive Officer, Cuttack Municipality (present Opposite Party No.5), by a registered gift deed dated 26.09.1969 for development of road and delivered possession thereof. A portion of land adjacent to Hal Plot No. 222 relating to Hal Plot No. 221 measuring an area of Ac. 0.216 decimals under Hal Khata No. 384 corresponding to Sabik Plot No. 995 was wrongly recorded in the name of Opposite Party No.5, though actually never transferred to him. The petitioner No.2, Manjubala Sutar is the owner in possession of the said plot, having purchased the same from Banshidhar Mohanty. In the last settlement operation, the authorities without properly verifying the records, included said portion of the land in records of the Opposite Party No.5. The ROR was finally published on 13.11.1987 by which time, the original owner was dead. His legal representatives, the original petitioner No.1 and after his death, his LRs, the present petitioners, filed revision under Section 15 of the OSS Act, being R.P. No. 4450/1996 before the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Odisha seeking necessary direction for correction of the Hal ROR. The Commissioner, in course of hearing was of the view that a field inquiry was necessary and since the settlement operations had been concluded, the Tahasildar has jurisdiction under Rule 34 of the OSS Rules to make necessary inquiry and to effect corrections. Accordingly, the revision was disposed of by order dated 01.11.1996. Pursuant to such order, the Tahasildar registered Mutation Case No. 1778 of 1996 and directed the Amin to conduct a field inquiry. Basing on the report of the Amin dated 24.12.1996, the mutation case was allowed by holding that the land in question had been wrongly recorded in the name of Opposite Party No.5 and the same ought to be reverted to its actual owner. The mutation case was thus disposed of by order dated 07.01.1997 and the Hal ROR was corrected. The entire suit land was thereafter transferred to petitioner No.2 by way of sale and the same was mutated in her name. The Opposite Party No.5 (Municipality) never challenged the orders passed by the Commissioner as well as the Tahasildar. However, a notice was issued to the petitioners to remove the construction already made by the petitioner No.2 over the case land. The petitioners therefore, approached this Court in OJC No. 3546 of 2001 and by order dated 27.03.2001 eviction of the petitioner has been stayed. The Opposite Party No.5 thereafter filed Mutation Appeal No. 141 of 2001 on 14.09.2001 challenging the order of the Tahasildar along with an application seeking condonation of delay.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=Wvv66Dud4dpqZq8Ja%2B1FGD9YwC%2FdCaiWPBVFQBj6atGvvFdoJmA0twW4%2Bs9erd4W&caseno=WP(C)/21466/2011&cCode=1&cino=ODHC010031902011&state_code=11&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.