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
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Police attach property of notorious drug peddler in Handwara
Handwara police attached property worth lakh belonging to a notorious drug peddler under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. Police said that acting under Section 68-F of the NDPS Act, Handwara police station attached two commercial shops along with the land situated at Handwara main market, belonging to Javaid Ahmad Sofi of Khunbal Handwara. 'The attachment was executed in the presence of first class executive magistrate, Handwara, in connection with case FIR No. 193/2024 U/S 8/21 NDPS Act of Handwara police station,' the spokesman said, adding that preliminary investigation has revealed that the said property was acquired through proceeds generated from illegal narcotics trade. The accused is also involved in case FIR No. 266/2022 U/S 8/21 NDPS Act registered at Handwara police action is part of police's ongoing efforts to dismantle the financial infrastructure of drug traffickers by targeting and confiscating illegally acquired assets,' the officer added.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
‘Bribe for Bail' case: Court clerk withdraws pleas for anticipatory bail, quashing of FIR
A court ahlmad (clerk) accused of demanding bribes on behalf of a judicial officer withdrew his pleas from the Delhi High Court on Wednesday — one for anticipatory bail, and another for quashing of the FIR. Justice Tejas Karia dismissed the pleas as withdrawn following the withdrawal request. The request comes on the heels of multiple hearings. Further, the Anti-Corruption Bureau(ACB), in its latest status report, indicated the possible involvement of the wife of the accused ahlmad, also a court staffer. On May 16, the ACB had lodged an FIR against the clerk under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Special Judge of Rouse Avenue Court was then transferred on May 20. Subsequently, the ahlmad filed for anticipatory bail in a Rouse Avenue court, which had rejected the plea on May 22. During the bail hearing, the clerk had argued that the ACB had filed a 'false fabricated FIR' against him, contending that the enforcement agency had 'tried to frame' the Special Judge to 'settle a score with' him. Meanwhile, the prosecution opposed the bail on the grounds that the clerk was a prime offender and was likely to tamper with evidence. It was also argued that a handwritten slip was allegedly provided by him to the complainant, which indicated his involvement in the alleged offence. The Indian Express on May 24 had reported that on January 29 this year, the Delhi government's Anti-Corruption Branch wrote to the Principal Secretary, Department of Law, Justice, and Legislative Affairs, seeking permission to initiate a probe against a Special Judge in the Rouse Avenue Court and his court's ahlmad over allegations of 'demand and acceptance of bribes for granting bail to accused persons.' The request, however, was passed on to the High Court. Even as the HC turned down the request on February 14, saying the ACB did not have 'sufficient material' against the Special Judge, it asked the ACB to continue its investigation. The judge was later transferred from Rouse Avenue Court to another court.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
SC deadline nears, illegal buildings in protected Aravalis face bulldozers
Gurgaon: Just a month-and-a-half to go for a Supreme Court-ordered deadline, the forest department and Faridabad administration on Wednesday started a 15-day demolition drive to remove all illegal construction and encroachments from protected Aravali land in the district. Officials said around a dozen banquet halls, boundary walls, gates and farmhouses that were built in Anangpur village of Faridabad were razed on Wednesday. This area is protected under Section 4 (special orders) of the Punjab Land Preservation Act (PLPA), which bars construction and any non-forest activities in forests. "We have started the demolition drive. We appeal to people to remove illegal encroachment themselves," a senior forest official said. Haryana govt ordered the demolition drive after the Supreme Court gave the state a three-month extension to clear protected Aravalis of illegal construction. SC, in July 2022, had ruled that all Aravali land under PLPA (special orders) should be treated as forest, with provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act applicable there, and any illegal construction should be demolished. Despite clear directives, Haryana over the years did not complete the task, having razed some 30 structures in four villages of Faridabad since the 2022 ruling. The apex court will take up the case next on Sept 8. The 15-day time frame was given to the Faridabad administration after a meeting chaired by chief secretary Anurag Rastogi on June 7. "All unauthorised constructions, including boundary walls — whether built before or after the 2021 survey—must be demolished within 15 days. The Municipal Corporation of Faridabad will oversee the removal of debris, with all costs to be borne by the property owners," read a document on minutes of the meeting. The Faridabad district magistrate will have to submit an action-taken report to the chief secretary, who also said the DM will be held accountable for any delay. Rastogi will hold another review meeting on June 27. On Wednesday, environmentalists said Faridabad was not the only Haryana district where protected Aravali forests have been encroached on. "Although demolition has begun in four villages of Faridabad after nearly three years, the order actually applies to special orders of Section 4 PLPA on all of Haryana, not just these villages. So far, no other districts have initiated the drive," said Sunil Harsana, an ecologist and wildlife expert. After SC's 2022 order, Haryana forest department had carried out a survey to identify illegal construction and found that 6,973 structures – most of them banquet halls and residential settlements – were built over protected PLPA land in four villages of Faridabad. A majority of these were in Anangpur (5,948) and the remaining in Ankhir, Lakkarpur, and Mewla Maharajpur. No such survey has been organised in Gurgaon. But activists allege that illegal construction is rampant in the Aravalis of Sohna, Raisina and Gwalpahari in the city, all of which are also protected by PLPA's special orders.
