JUDGMENT
15.07.2024
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
This is an appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the confirming judgment passed on 08.08.2002 followed by decree by the learned Addl. District Judge (FTC), Balangir
1
in Title Appeal No.62/1/8 of 1998-2002 whereby the judgment dated 30.03.1993 followed by decree passed by the learned Addl. Munsif, Balangir in Title Suit No 7 of 1985 was confirmed.
2. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration that the schedule land is Class-IV land and does not come under the category of Class-II land along with perpetual injunction against the defendants and recovery of possession. The plaintiffs claim to be the rightful owners of the schedule "A" and "B" lands as also to be in possession thereon. The Tahasildar and Revenue Officer, Balangir initiated a sou motu ceiling proceeding against the plaintiffs under chapter IV of the OLR Act, 1960 in the year 1975 being Case No. 2251 of 1974, changing the kisam of land and wrongly classifying it as Class-II land. According to the plaintiffs, said order was passed without following the procedure laid down under Rule 4(a) of the OLR Act. In the process, land measuring Ac.5.121 decimals, as described in the schedule to the plaint was declared as ceiling surplus land and vested to the State. The plaintiffs were served with notice to deliver
2
possession of the schedule "B" land. Hence, the suit.
3. The State defendants, though filed the written statements were set ex parte. It was admitted that the holding no. 162 was recorded in the name of the plaintiff but they are no longer the owners in possession of the same as the entire land was vested to the State in view of the decision rendered in the OLR case. Further, the kisam of the land was changed after due enquiry including spot inquiry and the nature thereof was accordingly determined. In short, it was concluded that no illegality had been committed.
4. Basing on the rival pleadings, the trial court framed 5 issues as described hereunder:-
"1. Whether the defendant No.2 was competent to change the kisam of the suit lands by classify in them as Class II lands without following the procedure laid down under the OLR Act and rules framed there under?
2. Whether the defendant No.2 has rightly determined the ceiling surplus lands the plaintiffs?
3. Whether the Civil Court has not jurisdiction to restrain the defendant No.3 who is exercising a statutory authority from taking possession of schedule B lands the plaintiffs?
3
4. Whether the plaintiffs will sustain irreparable injury if the action of the defendant No.3 is not restrained ?
5. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?
5. After considering the pleadings, evidence and the contentions raised, the trial court found that proper procedure has been followed by the Tahasildar in classifying the suit land as Class -II land. It was further held that the Tahasildar having followed due procedure and there being no irregularity or illegality in the order passed, no order of injunction can be passed against the State. The suit was thus dismissed.
6. The plaintiff carried the matter in appeal to the District Court. The learned 1stappellate Court, after going through the evidence and on examining the procedure adopted by the Tahasildar found no infirmity much less any illegality therein so as to be persuaded to interfere. As such, the 1stappeal was also dismissed. Being further aggrieved, the plaintiff has approached this Court in the present second appeal.
7. Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously argues that the entire procedure followed by
4
the Tahasildar is contrary to the statutory provisions, i.e., the OLR Act and the finding that Ac.5.21 decimals of land was ceiling surplus cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Further, the manner in which the land was classified as Class -II and its nature was changed cannot also be countenanced in law.
8. I have perused the impugned judgments and have also considered the contentions raised by Mr. Mishra. It is seen that both the courts below have taken into consideration the inquiry report relied upon in the OLR case to arrive at a specific finding that proper procedure was followed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has not been able to demonstrate as to how this factual finding is wrong. It is well settled that concurrent findings of fact are not to be interfered with in appeal unless it is shown that same are perverse, against the weight of evidence on record or blatantly erroneous. Such is not the case at hand inasmuch both the courts below, as already stated, have found nothing wrong in the procedure adopted by the Tahasildar in the OLR case in question. Moreover, the lands were vested on the State
5
Government long since and have been distributed accordingly to the beneficiaries. This Court, therefore finds no compelling reason to interfere. The second appeal is therefore, dismissed as not being admitted.
(Sashikanta Mishra) Judge
B.C. Tudu,
6