IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE – II, CUTTACK
Criminal Revision Case No.- 84/10 Dt.17-12-2019
In the matter of to declare A0.30Dec. 1300 plots as the absolute plot
of P.K. Das, Khata505, Bidyadharpur, Cuttack as per ROR issued by
consolidated with civil Court power.
1. That, one Haripada Chatarjee had obtained Ek Padia from Jamindar
Shyamsundar Bose A0.11dec and pad the rents to the Govt. of Odisha
and recognized as tenant. (Exhibits enclosed)
2. In measure settlement his area is wrongly reduced to A0.10Dec. that
Khata 84 Plot 685 A0.04Dec and 685/994 A0.06Dec. although his
son Arun Chatarjee is in possession of A0.11Dec in field.
3. That out of A0.10Dec recorded in 84 Khata of MS is in favour of
Arun Chatarjee vide 684 A0.04Dec. and 685/994 A0.06Dec out of
A0.04Dec and A0.3.5Dec from 685 plot and 685/994 plot of Arun
Chatarjee was sold by Arun Chatarjee to one Bina Kumari Sahoo and
rest A0.02.5Dec was sold to P.K. Das through the Deed in 1976.
4. That the rest of A0.01Dec out of his lease area excluded in 1977 MS
plot 681 PWD was given in possession to P.K. Das by the vender
Arun Chatarjee. It is in the lease area of A0.11Dec of his father.
5. That this plot 681 was wrongly recorded in MS as A0.03Dec Nayan
Jori instead of A0.01Dec in the field of Arun Chatarjee, S/o-
Haripada Chatarjee. That
6. That, the consolidation officer with Civil Court Power has taken up
the case by the appeal of the petitioner P.K. Das. Consolidation
officer had summened the Executive Engineer of PWD who is
incharge of Govt. Property of Cuttack and Arun Chatarjee the owner
of A0.01Dec as per his area of 681 Nayan Jori Plots. After through
enquiry Consolidation officer has ordered the record of 681 plots of
Nayanjori A0.02Dec will be converted to A0.01Dec and be awarded
1
to P.K. Das. The A0.03Dec was recorded wrongly although as per
measurement 681 plots Nayan Jodi is A0.01Dec.
7. That, Commissioner of Consolidation, Tahasildar has approved the
judgment of CO and issued ROR in favour of P.K. Das and P.K. Das
is till now giving rents and cess to Govt. of Odisha and Govt. of
Odisha is recognized him as a tenant.
8. The opposite party Ashok Pradhan and Bibhuti Pradhan has also
admitted the possession of Arun Chatarjee A0.04Dec. in their
boundary description of the Deed between their purchase from Sura
Lenka and Bibhuti Pradhan, Ashok Pradhan vide MS plot No.-679
and hall plot no.-1299 and Trilochan Shaoo, Chairman of
Madanmohan Jew and Bibhuti Pradhan and Others vide Plots No.-
680, hall plot No.-1302.
9. That, the opposite party had tried to encroach the area of 681 Nayan
Jodi Plots so the Civil Court case is started in the Court of Civil Court
Judge, Junior Division D.R. Mohanty as consolidation has no power
to take out the case of encroachment.
10. One D.R. Mohanty Civil Judge, Junior Division has taken of the case
and without judicial mind dismiss the case. So, the petitioner has
come to your Court to get the justice as he is victimize.
That, after selling A0.75Dec. of Arun Chatarjee area to Bina Kumari
Sahoo is existed till A0.25dec. Civil Judge had also written that P.K.
Das is not liable to 1300plots A0.03Dec.
11. That, Tahasildar had issued the ROR of 685/1194 Khata 447 to P.K.
Das. But he has not accepted the ROR and order of Tahasildar wants
Amin report.
12. That, Civil Judge Junior Division had described in his judgment why
in this sketch map of this Deed scale is not given. Although in
judgment of CO for the plot 1300 the scale is given.
2
13. That, OP has been encouraged by the ill act of the Civil Judge and a
put a lock in door in my wall between 1304 and 1300 plot and block
the passage to 1304 to 1300.
14. That, when P.K. Das went to the police the DCP Cuttack was advised
to him that as the mandatory injection on the plot of 681 Nayan Jori is
cannot be continued as 681 plot is a Govt. Plot (which is not in the
case as per the decision of Consolidation Officer, Commissioner and
Tahasildar).
15. In this circumstances I am forced to come to Hon’ble Court to
critically examine the case and uphold the judgment of consolidation
and award of ROR in favour of P.K. Das and allowed to continue the
mandatory injection on the plot of 1300 of P.K. Das as per Khata 505,
Bidyadharpur overlooking the judgment given by the Civil Judge
Junior Division, which is done due to lack of judicial mind.
16. That, the P.K. Das has purchased A0.02.5Dec. from Arun Chatarjee
the vendor of P.K. Das in 1976. And he is in possession of A0.01Dec.
by way of adverse possession given by the vendor Arun Chatarjee
through sketch map of Deed, which is in his area of A0.11Dec.
through the sketch map of Deed. …………………………. Ref. CO
Judgment and Commissioner Judgment and Tahasildar Judgment)
PRAYER
Hence I pray your honour to uphold the junineness of the claim of
petitioner as the opposite party has already approved the area is of Arun
Chatarjee in the two Deeds and CO, Commissioner, and Tahasildar uphold
the judgment of CO and order to realize the rent and cess from petitioner and
the judgment of CO has also described that 681 plot Nayan Jori is wrongly
recorded as per the evidence given by the Executive Engineer PWD in his
Court. For which act of kindness I will ever pray.
Petitioner
Through Advocate
3
EXHIBITS
Lease
A0.11Dec. Haripada Chatarjee 633 plot Khata 244 Anabadi.
A0.10Dec. (by Mistake) in favour A0.03Dec Nayan Jori instead of
of Arun Chatarjee. Map area a mistake A.01Dec. of
plot 681 in field.
Plot 685 Plot 685/994, Plot 685/994 Plot 681 =
A0.04Dec. Bina Area A0.06Dec A0.06Dec. out A0.03Dec
Kumari Sahoo A0.03.5Dec. by of which Nayan Jori
by of Deed way of Deed. A0.02.5Dec P.K. corrected as
1976. Das through A0.01Dec. by
Deed. CO as a Stitiban.
As its stands on
the lease area of
Arun Chatarjee.
Bina Kumari Sahoo P.K. Das purchased A02.5Dec. and
A0.07.5Dec. adverse possession of 681 =
A0.01Dec area MS and in hall
1300=A0.03.5dec say 3dec.
