BRUTI PRADHAN Vs. RAMPRIYA PRADHAN (DIED) PRASANNA PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, petitioners have assailed the legality of order dated 5.7.2000 passed in Revision Case No. 671 of 1998 under Section 37(1) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act) by learned Joint Commissioner of Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur (for short 'the Commissioner) setting aside the common order passed in Dispute case Nos. 7 of 1979 and 8 of 1979 by Assistant Consolidation Officer, Talab.

(2.) CASE land was originally recorded in the name of Mahadev Pradhan who died issueless in the year 1969 leaving behind his widow Mathura who died in the year 1985. Petitioners are descendents of late Prafulla Pradhan whereas opposite parties are descendents of late Ambika Pradhan. Dispute Case Nos. 7 of 1979 and 8 of 1979 were initiated to adjudicate the rival claims of late Prafulla and late Ambika over the case land. Prafullas claim was based on registered adoption deed no. 17 dated 22.1.1948 executed by Mahadev and Mathura. He also placed on record photographs and documents to substantiate the claim that he performed Mahadevs 'Asthi Bisarjan at Allahabad. Ambikas claim over the case land was based on registered gift deed no. 204 dated 10.1.1968 executed by Mahadev and Mathura. Ambika also produced deed of cancellation no. 308 dated 10.10.1952 purported to have been executed by Mahadev and Mathura to cancel the deed of adoption in favour of Prafulla. That apart, Ambika claimed to be in possession of the case land since the date of execution of gift deed in his favour. In support of their rival assertions, oral evidence was also adduced on behalf of Prafulla and Ambika. On appraisal of evidence on record, learned Assistant Consolidation Officer, Talab by order dated 10.4.1980 upheld Prafullas claim of adoption and directed to record the case land in his name. Learned Commissioner in passing the impugned order rejected the claim that Prafulla was the adopted son of Mahadev and Mathura and upheld the claim of Ambika to be in possession over the case land since the date of execution of gift deed in his favour and to have thereby acquired title by way of adverse possession. Consequently, order passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer, Talab was set aside and Consolidation Officer, Sambalpur was directed to correct the record in favour of the opposite parties.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that Section 37(a) of the Act does not prescribe any period of limitation for filing revision. Therefore, discretion exercised by the learned Commissioner to entertain the revision is immune from criticism. It is further contended that opposite parties produced registered deed of cancellation by virtue of which adoption of Prafulla made by Mahadev and Mathura was revoked. Evidence on record does not indicate that Prafulla ever resided with Mahadev and Mathura. Considering the materials on record learned Commissioner has rightly held that Ambika and his successors -in -interest remained in possession over the case land all along since 1952 and thereby acquired title by way of adverse possession.