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
NDTV
44 minutes ago
- NDTV
Supreme Court Refuses To Reduce Lawyer's Sentence For Abusing Woman Judge, Says...
New Delhi: The Supreme Court today rejected a petition by a lawyer convicted of abusing a woman judicial officer in a court in Delhi. The top court refused to reduce the imprisonment sentence to 6 months and said, "Today, the majority of our officers in Delhi are women. They will not be able to function if somebody can get away like this. Think of their state," the bench commented orally. The bench of Justice PK Mishra and Justice Manmohan was hearing a plea against the order of the Delhi High Court, which upheld the conviction of a lawyer who used abusive language towards a woman judge in a challan matter inside the trial court. The lawyer used abusive, vulgar expletives after the judge had adjourned the matter. While hearing the plea, Justice Manmohan verbally remarked, "Just see the inspection report, the language used, we cannot even say in the open court". Justice Manmohan further said that if a stern view is not taken against such behaviour, women judicial officers would not be ensured a safe work environment. "Today, the majority of our officers in Delhi are women. They will not be able to function like this- if somebody can get away like this. Think of their state," the bench said. The lawyer, Sanjay Rathore, was convicted by the trial court and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment for the offence under Section 509 (intending to outrage modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code, 3 months under Section 189 (injury to public servant), and an additional three months under Section 353 (assault or criminal force against public servant to deter them from their duty). The trial court directed that the sentences would run consecutively, resulting in a total sentence of two years. Later, the High Court said that the sentence would run concurrently and not consecutively, reducing his sentence to 18 months from two years The counsel for the petitioner urged the Supreme Court bench to reduce his term of imprisonment to six months. He stressed several "mitigating factors" for this consideration, like his ageing parents and young children. He informed that the Bar Council has also acted against the lawyer.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Kerala HC grants emergency leave to convict for school admission of his child
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday granted one week emergency leave to a life-term convict at the Central Prison and Correctional Home, Thavanur, Malappuram from June 12 to June 18 for making arrangements for his child's admission to a higher secondary school. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan while passing the order observed that father's presence played a vital role in a child's higher education journey by offering emotional support, guidance, and mentorship. The order came on a petition filed by the wife of the convict. The court noted that the child of the convict obtained six A+ and two A grades in the SSLC examination. When such a bright student sought the help of his father to get admission to a Plus Two course, the court could not keep its eyes shut to such a request from a convict. The court added that 'let the bright child of the convict spend a few days with his father.'
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
HC holds BMC ‘negligent', orders Rs 50 lakh each to kin of 8 victims of Hotel City Kinara fire
Nearly a decade after eight persons lost their lives in a fire at Kurla's Hotel City Kinara in 2015, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday held Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) negligent and directed it to pay Rs 50 lakh each to their kin within 12 weeks. Slamming BMC for 'gross negligence' over granting approvals without following norms, the HC observed that 'an utter failure of its officials in the discharge of their statutory duties' was a 'proximate cause of the fire'. It said the BMC can be held 'vicariously liable for acts and commission and omission of its officials'. On October 16, 2015, a fire broke out on the mezzanine level of a hotel restaurant that killed eight people. Among the victims were seven undergraduate students from Don Bosco Institute of Technology and College and a 32-year-old employee of Sterling Engineering Consultants. A bench of Justices BP Colabawalla and Firdosh P Pooniwalla passed a verdict on a plea filed in 2018 by parents of seven victims and wife of the eighth deceased challenging the order of the February, 2017 Lokayukta order. The Lokayukta had rejected their plea seeking an investigation, observing that a compensation of Rs 1 lakh each has already been paid to them by the state government, prompting them to move HC. Senior advocate Naushad Engineer for the petitioners argued that the restaurant was operating without proper permission, including no-objection certificate (NOC) from the fire department, it was the duty of BMC inspectors to shut it down. Senior advocate AY Sakhare for the BMC claimed that the incident was a direct result of 'reckless and negligent actions of hotel owner and operator, who violated safety norms', and the civic body cannot be made liable to pay compensation. However, the bench quashed and set aside Lokayukta's order noting that it failed to consider that Rs 1 lakh was merely an ad-hoc compensation and it did not consider the actual compensation to be paid to the petitioners. The HC observed that BMC should have maintained 'higher standard of care' in matters concerning public safety and that no action was taken despite civic officials were aware of the breach, which was a 'fire hazard' that the mezzanine floor/loft area, which can be only used for storage purposes was being used to serve customers. The court said it was 'even more shocking' that Kinara was granted an eating housing licence without obtaining any fire NOC from the Fire Brigade Department and said the same was 'one of the most egregious breaches committed not only by the owner of Kinara but also by BMC'. It also noted that the BMC had permitted the use of LPG cylinders without licence and their storage in the loft area of the restaurant. The HC said BMC neither acted on complaints made about violations by the restaurant nor its own inspection reports. The HC further observed that except for one victim who was 32-year-old, all others were students and were nearly 20 years old having dependents, therefore they had 'full working life ahead of them' and they would 'earn a good salary during their whole working life'. 'Keeping all these factors in mind, in our view, in respect of each victim, compensation of at least Rs30 lakh would be payable in 2015 (year of incident). Considering inflation and the interest that the said sum of Rs 30 lakh would have earned over the period of 10 years, the compensation payable to each of the Petitioners, in 2025, would be Rs 50 lakh,' the bench held, while holding BMC to be liable to pay Rs 50 lakh compensation to each petitioner.
