KUSUM JENA Vs. NAKHI DEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application is directed against the revisional order of the Commissioner annexed as Annexure -5 who, in the revision filed at the instance of the petitioners, has ordered that the hand should be recorded in the name of the opposite parties even though the opposite parties have never assailed the order of the Consolidation Officer as well as the order of the appellate authority.

(2.) THE total consolidable land was 2.37 acres and the present dispute centres round 18 decimals of land appertaining to plot No. 49, in the land register the name of the petitioners had been noted in respect of the land in question, Opp. party No. 1 filed objection obviously Under Section 9(1) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act (for short 'the Act'), inter alia, on the ground that kinei Rout who was also a member of the joint family had made an oral gift in favour of his wife Chani and pursuant to the said oral gift Chani was occupying the land as owner in possession thereof. Said Chani executed a registered deed of gift in favour of Nakhi, opp. party No. 1, in the year 1969. Though the record of rights of the year 1973 does not note Nakhi's possession and, on the other hand, mentions the petitioners to be in possession of the land, but in view of the so -called gift by Kinei in favour of Chani and the subsequent gift by Chani in favour of Nakhi, the said Nakhi should be recorded in respect of the 18 decimals of land in question. The Consolidation Officer did not believe Nahki's possession over the land in question pursuant to the execution of the registered gift deed by her mother Chani. But as in the earlier record of rights the name of Chani had been mentioned, he directed that though separete record cannot be allowed in favour of Nakhi, but Nakni's possession be noted. Aagainst this order the petitioners filed an appeal. The appellate authority has confirmed the same, the petitioner carried a revision. The revisional authority in the revision filed by the petitioner came to hold that opp. party No. 1 had a title over the land in question and therefore, directed that the land in question should be recorded in favour of Nakhi, she being the title holder in respect thereof. It is this order of the revisional authority which is being assailed in this writ application.

(3.) MR . Ray, appearing for opp. party No, 1, on the other hand, contends that even though opp. party No. 1, had not preferred any appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer, but in the revision filed by the petitioner, the Consolidation Commissioner was entitled to pass such appropriate orders as he thought fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, Therefore, the impugned order cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.