DIBAKAR SWAIN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P .K. Misra, J 1. Heard Mr. G. C. Patnaik for the petitioner, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for opposite parties 1 to 3 and learned counsel appearing for some other opposite parties:

(2.) DURING consolidation proceeding, the disputed land was recorded in the name of the State. The present petitioner filed objection claiming that the disputed land had been given on lease by the ex -intermediary to the vendor of the petitioner and subsequently purchased by the present petitioner. By the time the matter was taken up by the Consolidation Officer, Second Appeal No. 203/78 relating to the very same land involving the very same question was pending in the High Court. Keeping in view the aforesaid aspect, the Consolidation Officer directed :

(3.) IN the present case, the Consolidation Officer had not determined the rights of the parties on merit, but merely because the Second Appeal was pending in the High Court, he had declined to accept the claim of the present petitioner. It is, of course, true that the revisional authority had observed that sufficient materials have not been produced to establish the right. In normal course, the revisional authority should have remanded the matter for decision by the original authority so that all parties could have got the opportunity of leading evidence in support of their respective cases. Since the Consolidation Officer had not decided the matter on merit, I think interest of justice would be served by setting aside the order passed by the revisional authority and directing the Consolidation Officer, or the Tahsildar if there has been notification under Section 41 of the Consolidation Act in the meantime, to decide the matter in accordance with law by giving opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner as well as opposite parties. It is made clear that no opinion has been expressed regarding the merits of the contentions raised by any of the parties.