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".
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
44 minutes ago
- Time of India
Calcutta HC stays payouts to sacked group-C, D staff
The Calcutta High Court on Monday directed the West Bengal government not to pay monthly allowance to the Group-C and Group-D categories of employees, who lost their jobs following a Supreme Court verdict in April, along with the SSC teachers. Recently, the Trinamool government announced a monthly allowance of Rs 20,000 and Rs 25,00 for Group-C and Group-D categories respectively under a new scheme 'West Bengal Livelihood and Social Security Interim Scheme, 2025' early this month. Justice Amrita Sinha , who was hearing the case today, asked the state's Advocate General Kishore Dutta, whether the Group-C and D employees, who will get the allowance under the 'West Bengal Livelihood and Social Security Interim Scheme, 2025' will do some work or will get the allowance, sitting at home. Dutta, however, stated the matter included in the scheme. "This money is allocated from a special fund, Dutta added. Justice Sinha asked on what basis the allowance was determined and how many employees will get this money? In which cases was such financial assistance given in the past?"
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Kerala Seeks To Amend Wildlife Act To Allow Killing Of Animals. Reasons Explained
Kerala, a state known for its lush forests and biodiversity, has been grappling with a surge in human-wildlife conflicts. These conflicts have led to the loss of human lives, injuries, crop destruction, and economic hardship for farmers. To address this crisis, the Kerala government has been pushing for amendments to the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (WLPA), seeking legal provisions to allow the controlled killing or culling of certain wild animals that pose threats to human life and livelihoods. The Forest and Wildlife Department has been tasked with initiating the process to seek central government approval for culling wild animals, such as wild boars, that pose a threat to public safety and livelihoods. The Forest Secretary has been directed to draft a legislative proposal in consultation with the Law Secretary to facilitate the necessary legal provisions, as per a report by Matrubhumi. Here's why Kerala is advocating for these changes: Kerala's unique geography, with nearly 30% of its land covered by forests, places human settlements near wildlife habitats. Rapid urbanisation, habitat degradation, changes in agricultural practices, and regional fluctuations in wildlife populations have also intensified human-wildlife conflicts. From 2016-17 to January 2025, wildlife attacks in Kerala resulted in 919 deaths and 8,967 injuries, according to government data. The state has identified 273 out of 941 village local bodies as human-wildlife conflict hotspots. Human-wildlife conflict: Frequent encounters between humans and wild animals, such as elephants, tigers, wild boars, macaques, peafowl and bison, have resulted in loss of human life and property damage. Crop damage: Wild animals, like elephants and wild boars, cause significant damage to crops, affecting farmers' livelihoods. Public safety concerns: The presence of certain wild animals like monkeys and porcupines in human-dominated areas poses a risk to public safety. What Does the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, Currently Allow? The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, is India's cornerstone legislation for protecting wildlife, prohibiting hunting and ensuring conservation of species and their habitats. It also includes provisions for dealing with animals that pose threats. Despite these provisions, the process is slow and bureaucratic. Only the CWLW, a senior state-level official, can authorise killing, leading to delays in addressing urgent threats. Non-lethal measures (capture, tranquilization, relocation) are prioritised, but these are often impractical due to logistical challenges or lack of suitable relocation sites. Court orders and guidelines from bodies like the National Tiger Conservation Authority and the Project Elephant Scheme further restrict lethal action. Why Kerala Finds the Current Law Inadequate? Kerala argues that the Wildlife (Protection) Act's stringent regulations and centralised decision-making hinder timely responses to human-wildlife conflicts. The exclusive authority of the Chief Wildlife Warden (CWLW) also creates bottlenecks. For instance, in remote areas like Wayanad, waiting for CWLW approval can delay action, endangering lives. In 2022, Kerala empowered local bodies to use licensed shooters to kill wild boars raiding crops. However, this measure failed due to a shortage of licensed shooters in rural areas and impractical guidelines, such as checking if a boar is pregnant before shooting. "Before shooting a wild boar, one has to examine whether it is pregnant or not. Such impractical guidelines have failed to serve the purpose. The growing population of wildlife has to be controlled to prevent threats to human lives," State Forest Minister A K Saseendran said. Here are other reasons: Declaring wild boars as vermin (under Section 62) was previously rejected by the central government, limiting the state's ability to control their population. Bonnet macaques, added to Schedule I in 2022, can no longer be captured or relocated without CWLW approval, despite their crop-raiding behaviour. Animals like elephants and tigers, protected under Schedule I, require exhaustive non-lethal measures before lethal action, even when they pose immediate threats. Crop losses (e.g., wild boars destroying up to 60% of yields in Wayanad) threaten food security and farmers' livelihoods. Fear of attacks has disrupted rural life, with 273 villages living under constant threat Proposed Amendments to the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1. Decentralising Authority: The proposal is to transfer the power to issue "kill permits" under Section 11(1)(A) and 11(1)(B) from the CWLW to Chief Conservators of Forests (CCFs). Notably, CCFs are senior officials stationed at regional levels, enabling faster, localised decision-making. This would streamline responses to wildlife threats, especially in conflict hotspots. 2. Declaring Wild Boars as Vermin: The government has proposed to declare wild boars as vermin under Section 62 for specific periods and regions, allowing controlled culling without legal repercussions. Wild boars are prolific breeders and cause widespread agricultural damage. Declaring them vermin would enable farmers and local bodies to manage their populations effectively. 3. Removing Bonnet Macaques from Schedule I: To allow capture and relocation without stringent approvals. 4. Legal Safeguards for Farmers and Officials: Protect farmers and field officers from prosecution when acting against wildlife threats, encouraging proactive measures. 5. Region-Specific Culling: Allow controlled culling of "man-eating" animals (e.g., tigers, leopards) in high-conflict zones, with clear guidelines to prevent misuse. Ethical Concerns Kerala's proposal to amend the Wildlife Protection Act to allow the culling of wild animals has sparked debates. Conservationists raise ethical concerns, citing potential harm to endangered species and ecosystems. Ecological experts warn of unintended population imbalances and emphasise addressing habitat degradation.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Two Army officers surrender before Vasco court in 4-year-old boy's death
Panaji: Two Indian Army officers, accused of ignoring the construction defects in the Naval Officers Residential Area, Dabolim, finally appeared before the criminal court in Vasco on Monday after several summonses went unserved. The two army officers—one recently retired and settled in Goa—were named as co-accused in the death of a four-and-a-half-year-old boy who fell to his death from the sixth floor in April 2017. Both the accused were released on personal bonds of Rs 20,000 each, said Veerendra Mohan, special counsel for prosecution. 'Justice, though delayed, is not being denied as the two army officers have finally surrendered. They were the project manager and deputy project manager and, as such, were responsible for the execution of the projects without defect,' said Mohan. 'Defects such as not fixing the grill of a window resulted in the unfortunate death of the only son of a naval medico couple.' The naval medico couple approached the high court of Bombay at Goa, seeking that the criminal proceedings be expedited. The HC, in writ petition 318 of 2018, directed that 'proceedings should be conducted with utmost dispatch and expedition'. The special counsel said that though Goa police completed investigations and chargesheeted all the accused persons for the construction defects, the ministry of defence earlier declined prosecution sanction and instead proceeded under the Army Act, 1950. However, though the two army officers faced a general court martial trial in Panaji, the army could not try the two officers after they submitted pleas that the time limit statute under the Army Act was exceeded.
