Orissa High Court Raps Tahasildar For ‘Lackadaisical Attitude’ In Issuing Records Of Land Allotted To Indo-Pak War Widow

 Single Judge Bench of Justice Biswanath Rath said,

“…this Court finding this to be a fit case while expressing its anxiety in the inaction of the Tahasildar, Chatrapur for over two months involving such serious issues recording the Tahasildar failed in appreciating this not an ordinary case put up before him and the case involves a War-Widow whose husband has lost his life for the Nation requesting early attention to such issues.”

Brief Facts

The husband of the petitioner, Late Lance Naik M. Chineya was killed in action while taking part in the Indo-Pak War of 1971, leaving behind his widow and two minor children. The petitioner was allotted a piece of land by the Government as per the prevailing scheme for war-widows.

The Patta granted in her favour for the land got destroyed in the super-cyclone. Therefore, she repeatedly approached the Tahasildar, Chatrapur followed by a representation to the District Collector, Ganjam on 11.11.2022. However, to her utter disappointment, she received no response from the authorities. Thus, she approached the High Court seeking appropriate directions.

Submissions of Parties

J.K. Naik, counsel for the petitioner submitted that early steps must have been taken considering the status of the petitioner. He expressed anguish over the fact that the petitioner was compelled to approach the High Court for necessary directions due to inaction of the authorities concerned, including the District Collector.

U.K. Sahoo, Additional Standing Counsel for State, also agreed that once a detailed representation is already made to the Tahasildar, he was duty-bound to reach a decision. He conceded to the argument that considering status of the petitioner being a war-widow, the authorities should have attended to her case promptly.

Court’s Observations

The Court, at the outset, expressed discontentment over the inaction of the Tahasildar. It directed him to undertake the necessary exercise promptly and if required, to trace out the order of land allotment to the petitioner from the official records.

“…further if there is involvement of the War-Widow is necessary, then the Tahasildar himself may visit the residence of the War-Widow already aged 80 years involved herein instead of troubling her to come to his Office to find out all sorts of solutions involved therein.”

The Court directed the Tahasildar to complete the search for the record within a period of fifteen days and also clarified that even if the authority fails to find out any material suggesting allotment of the land to the petitioner, a decision would be taken regarding the right over the land and record of rights to be prepared to that effect within one and half months.

“Since the Petitioner claims to be in possession of the particular property for over several decades, in the event there is no material available establishing allotment in favour of the Petitioner, there should be a decision in deciding the land in her occupation and there should be preparation of Record of Rights accordingly,” the Court added.

Having due regard for the gravity of the matter, the Court directed the District Collector to monitor the case and to submit a compliance report within two months.

Case Title: M. Rajamma v. State of Orissa & Ors.

Case No.: W.P. (C) No. 2690 of 2023

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. J.K. Naik & Mr. A.K. Sahoo, Advocates

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. U.K. Sahoo, Additional Standing Counsel

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 23