Orissa High Court affirms civil courts' jurisdiction in land title disputes
CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has held that the state government cannot determine ownership in its favour and proceed with eviction through summary proceeding as the proper and competent forum for declaration of right, title, interest and possession is the civil court.
The ruling came while the vacation court set aside the eviction order issued by the tehsildar (Dhamnagar) under Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 and the subsequent orders by appellate authorities - sub-collector (Bhadrak) and collector (Bhadrak) endorsing it.
Dinabandhu Behera had filed a petition challenging the eviction order claiming that after the abolition of the estate, the ex-intermediary submitted an Ekpadia in favour of the petitioner's father, in whose name the tenant ledger was opened. His father thereafter paid rent to the government.
Behera came into possession of the suit land after his father's death. Contrary to these facts, the land was erroneously recorded in the name of the state during the Hal settlement, a factual inaccuracy which led to the initiation of encroachment proceedings against him, the petition claimed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
2 days ago
- New Indian Express
Orissa High Court affirms civil courts' jurisdiction in land title disputes
CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has held that the state government cannot determine ownership in its favour and proceed with eviction through summary proceeding as the proper and competent forum for declaration of right, title, interest and possession is the civil court. The ruling came while the vacation court set aside the eviction order issued by the tehsildar (Dhamnagar) under Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 and the subsequent orders by appellate authorities - sub-collector (Bhadrak) and collector (Bhadrak) endorsing it. Dinabandhu Behera had filed a petition challenging the eviction order claiming that after the abolition of the estate, the ex-intermediary submitted an Ekpadia in favour of the petitioner's father, in whose name the tenant ledger was opened. His father thereafter paid rent to the government. Behera came into possession of the suit land after his father's death. Contrary to these facts, the land was erroneously recorded in the name of the state during the Hal settlement, a factual inaccuracy which led to the initiation of encroachment proceedings against him, the petition claimed.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Time of India
Only civil courts can try land ownership or title disputes: Odisha HC
CUTTACK : In a significant ruling, the Orissa high court has held that revenue authorities cannot adjudicate disputes involving ownership or title to land, emphasising that such matters fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of civil courts. The vacation bench of Justice S K Panigrahi issued the order on May 30, setting aside an eviction order passed by the tehsildar of Dhamnagar under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment (OPLE) Act, 1972. The case pertains to Dinabandhu Behera, who challenged the eviction proceedings initiated against him on the grounds that the state had erroneously recorded the disputed land in its name during the hal settlement. Behera claimed that his father had legally come into possession of the property after an 'ekpadia' (a written recognition) was issued by the ex-intermediary post-estate abolition. His father's name was subsequently recorded in the tenant ledger and rent was regularly paid to the govt. Upon his death, Behera came into possession of the land. But, despite these records, the tehsildar initiated eviction proceedings treating Behera as an encroacher. The sub-collector and collector of Bhadrak later upheld the eviction order. The HC, while setting aside all these orders, stated that the existence of a bona fide dispute over ownership and title renders summary eviction proceedings under the OPLE Act is inappropriate. "The revenue authorities, who conduct summary procedures, are not competent to adjudicate such complex disputes of title," Justice Panigrahi observed. The court further noted that Behera had already approached the civil judge, junior division, Dhamnagar, seeking declaration of his right, title and interest in the suit land. He had also prayed for a declaration that the encroachment proceedings were unsustainable, given the pending civil suit. Reaffirming the supremacy of civil courts in deciding title-related matters, the court ruled that "summary proceedings by revenue authorities cannot constitute the proper forum for adjudication where a bona fide dispute exists over title".
New Indian Express
29-05-2025
- New Indian Express
SC grants interim bail to IAS officer Manish Agarwal in PA suicide case
CUTTACK: Senior IAS Officer Manish Agarwal was granted interim bail by the Supreme Court on Tuesday in connection with the case on abetment of suicide of his personal assistant (PA) when he was Malkangiri collector five years ago. Agarwal had moved the Supreme Court after the Orissa High Court rejected his anticipatory bail petition on April 25. While issuing notice returnable on July 22 to the state government, the apex court's division bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta said, 'Meanwhile, the petitioner may surrender before the trial court and furnish bail bonds to its satisfaction upon which he shall be released on interim bail,' Agarwal, who is presently additional secretary, Planning and Convergence department had sought interim protection after the sub-divisional judicial magistrate (SDJM) court, Malkangiri, rejected his plea seeking exemption from appearance during the trial. He had filed an anticipatory bail petition before the high court expressing apprehension that if he appears before the SDJM Court, he will be remanded in custody on the ground that offence under Section 306 of IPC (abetting suicide) is triable by the Court of Sessions.
