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
42 minutes ago
- Time of India
When we failed our children, we failed the world
Swaty Prakash is a mother, a writer, and an educator. She also fiercely adds that she is a former journalist who spent over a decade running after news for some of the country's leading newspapers and news agencies. However, she now freelances and dishes out free (and often unsolicited) advice to her child and her students. Teaching in an international school in Jaipur these days, she aspires to help those young writers bloom, and yes write her own story too. LESS ... MORE The world is breaking apart. Not in some distant apocalypse or in the hands of a few power drunk global leaders, but here and now in the unmistakable unraveling of our ecosystems, communities, and most tragically, our moral compass. We speak of melting glaciers and violent storms, of poisoned rivers and extinct species, of fractured democracies and rising intolerance. Yet, amidst all these mounting crises, the most damning indictment of humanity may be this: we have failed our children. Not just in war-torn, faraway countries, but right here, in the neighbouring lane lined with dhabas and mechanic shops and in homes, where 14-year-olds are preparing our breakfast while we scroll through injustices in the world. We have built a world where children pick rags before they pick up pencils, where they sleep under flyovers instead of roofs, where they are trafficked, violated, married off, silenced. The very idea that child rights need laws, protections, protocols, and conventions speaks volumes — that a child must fight for what should be guaranteed. This collective failure is not due to a lack of legal architecture. We are surrounded by it. A forest of laws — and a desert of accountability India has, on paper, one of the most comprehensive legal frameworks for child protection. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 reimagines children in conflict with law as needing care and protection. The POCSO Act criminalizes all forms of child sexual abuse, including aggravated assault by persons in positions of trust and power. The Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, especially after the 2016 amendment, bans all forms of child labour below 14 and hazardous labour for adolescents. Each law is the outcome of deep pain and pressure. Each is supposed to mean that a child will not be married off at 13, raped by a teacher, made to clean sewers, or trafficked across borders. Each is a promise. But what happens when those promises aren't kept? Internationally too, our commitments are robust. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), 1989 — ratified by India in 1992 — guarantees protection from economic exploitation, protection from trafficking and sexual abuse, and the right to recovery and reintegration. The ILO Conventions No. 138 and 182 target child labour by specifying minimum ages for work and condemning the worst forms of child labour. Yet, the very existence of these conventions points to the horrific truth: without them, there would be no brakes at all. No lines we're legally bound not to cross. And even with them, too many children remain invisible to the systems designed to protect them. Our legal victories, hard won It is public interest litigation that has often pushed these protections further. A landmark petition by Just Rights for Children (JRC) on the sexual exploitation of children in the online space has brought in some very basic changes in the child pornography or Child Sexual Abuse and Exploitative Material (CSEAM) cases. It makes even downloading or watching child porn in the closed walls of your house is a crime. But the fact that till the petition was filed, the paedophiles could do that clandestinely and without any legal scanner watching them is ironic. In Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, the Supreme Court laid down stringent guidelines against the use of child labour in circuses. In Independent Thought v. Union of India, it was clarified that marital rape of a minor is rape — even if she is married. Law has done heavy lifting. But it cannot heal what society continues to break. But this isn't just about laws. It is about conscience. How did we build a world where we needed a Supreme Court judgment to say that a 15-year-old wife deserves the same protection as a 15-year-old unmarried girl? Why does the idea that children should be playing, not working, require activism and litigation? What does it say about us — about our institutions, our governments, our communities — that we could be so organized about exploitation, and so lax about protection? Every rescued child is not a symbol of success — but of the many who weren't saved in time. Real success lies not in rescue, but in prevention. In ensuring a child is never trafficked, never abused, never forced to grow up before her time. That begins with treating children not as passive beneficiaries of adult benevolence, but as rights-holders with agency, dignity, and the full attention of the law. The world cannot afford to mistreat its children and hope to survive. If we do not change the way we value childhood — not just sentimentally, but structurally — then the world we hand over to the next generation will be even more unlivable than the one we inherited. And that, perhaps, will be the cruelest failure of all. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
Bengaluru Stampede Case: HC permits Govt to submit status report in sealed cover, posts hearing to June 12
The Karnataka High Court allowed the state government to submit a sealed status report regarding the Chinnaswamy stadium stampede. This decision came amidst concerns that public disclosure could influence the judicial inquiry and bail hearings. The court will hear the case on June 12. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday permitted the state government to submit a status report into the June 4 stampede outside Chinnaswamy stadium in Bengaluru in a sealed cover accepting a request from the government that making its content public might influence judicial enquiry as well as the ongoing hearing on the bail petitions.A division bench of acting chief justice V Kameshwar Rao and Justice CM Joshi will now hear the case on June 12, Thursday. The HC has taken up suo motu cognizance of the ghastly stampede caused during the RCB's victory celebrations after winning the 2025 IPL final that led to an unprecedented stampede killing 11 people and injuring scores of others. Quite a few public-spirited people have moved the high court seeking justice in the Shashi Kiran Shetty, appearing for the government, mentioned the likelihood of the persons arrested in connection with the case using the status report in the bail petitions, and its influence on the judicial SR Krishna Kumar at the high court posted for Wednesday the bail petition from RCB's marketing head Nikhil Sosale in connection with the stampede counsel questioned why his client, and three others associated with the DNA Entertainment Network, had been singled out in the case. The police, on June 6, arrested DNA Vice president Sunil Mathew, operations manager Kiran Kumar S and another employee Shamant NP Mavinakere along with Sosale. They have also challenged their counsel said the arrests were made only because Chief Minister Siddaramaiah ordered the arrests and not because the investigations required their arrest. Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty urged the court to hear the matter on Wednesday as he needed time to come back with a response.
The Wire
an hour ago
- The Wire
After Letter From Rajya Sabha, SC Dropped Plan to Probe Allahabad HC Judge's Remarks at VHP Event
Law The Wire Staff Earlier in February, Rajya Sabha chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar had remarked that only the Parliament has the jurisdiction to address the issue of removing Justice Yadav from the Allahabad high court. Allahabad high court judge Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav at a VHP event. Photo: Special arrangement. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute Now New Delhi: While the Supreme Court was preparing to initiate an in-house inquiry into Allahabad high court judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav's controversial remarks at an event organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), it dropped the plan after a categorical letter from the Rajya Sabha secretariat told the apex court that the matter is under its exclusive jurisdiction. Citing people aware of the matter, Hindustan Times reported that the move was halted after a letter from the Rajya Sabha in March underlined that the constitutional mandate for any such proceeding lies solely with the chairman of the Rajya Sabha, and ultimately with Parliament and the President. As a result, the letter stalled the judiciary's plan to initiate an in-house inquiry against Justice Yadav. Prior to this, following an adverse report from the chief justice of Allahabad high court, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna had set the process in motion to assess whether Justice Yadav's conduct warranted scrutiny. The newspaper reached out to the Rajya secretariat for a response on the next course of action but did not get one immediately. Earlier in February, Rajya Sabha chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar had remarked that only the Parliament has the jurisdiction to address the issue of removing Justice Yadav from the Allahabad high court. 'Honourable members, I am seized of an undated notice for motion received on 13 December 2024, bearing 55 purported signatures of the members of the Rajya Sabha seeking removal from office of Justice Shekhar Yadav of Allahabad High Court under Article 124(4) of the Constitution. The jurisdiction for the stated subject matter constitutionally lies in exclusivity with the Chairman Rajya Sabha and in an eventuality with the Parliament and Honourable President,' Dhankhar had said. Dhankhar's remarks had come after a motion was submitted by 55 Opposition MPs citing Justice Yadav's alleged misconduct. On December 8 last year, while speaking at the event organised by VHP, Justice Yadav, had said that India would function only as per the wishes of the 'majority,' referring to the Hindu community. He even used the controversial term 'kathmulla' to refer to a section of Muslims who engaged in practices such as having four wives and triple talaq, describing them as 'fatal' to the nation. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Law 'Matter of Serious Concern': Court on Missing Inquiry File About Security of AugustaWestland Accused View More
