MAYADHAR SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to the present writ application are indicated below. The undisputed genealogy of the parties is as follows:

(2.) WITHOUT going into the question as to whether the compromise petition was read over and explained to present petitioner No. 1. I think the writ application is to be allowed on the short ground that the alleged compromise accepted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer had not been signed by present petitioners 2 and 3. It is no doubt true that present petitioner No. 1 who is son of petitioner No. 2 and the son of petitioner No. 3 have signed in the order -sheet. However, in the property in question all the petitioners had interest. There is nothing on record to indicate that petitioner No. 1 was, in fact, authorised agent of petitioner No. 2 and the son of petitioner No. 3 who had signed was her authorised agent. It cannot be held that the signatures given by the sons indicating their consent were binding on petitioners 2 and 3.

(3.) UNDER the scheme of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, the Assistant Consolidation Officer has no jurisdiction to decide a contested matter. However, if all the parties before the authority agree, the Assistant Consolidation Officer can dispose of a matter on the basis of such compromise. Since in the present case, the alleged compromise had not been signed by two of the co -sharers, the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was not binding on them. Subsequently, objection was filed before the authority and was disposed of by the Consolidation Officer of merit. Since the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was without jurisdiction, it cannot be said that merely because appeal was not filed, the said void order was binding on the parties.