BHRAMARBARA SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition involves the following prayer:

(2.) Undisputedly, the impugned order involved in four sets of revision petitions involving Revision Petition Nos.101 of 1998 to 117 of 1998, appears to have been filed under Sec. 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (for short "the Act, 1972) being aggrieved by the appellate order involved therein whereas Revision Petition Nos.161 of 1998 to 168 of 1998 appear to be direct applications under Sec. 37(1) of the Act, 1972.

(3.) Mr.Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners involved herein in challenge to the common order under Annexure-7 in disposal of both the sets of revision petitions under Sec. 36 and 37(1) of the Act, 1972 raises a technical ground on the maintainability of the order at Annexue- 7 on the premises that for the nature of revisions, first set of revisions under Sec. 36 of the Act, 1972 and other set of revisions since proceeded under Sec. 37(1) of the Act, 1972, the revisional authority should have decided two sets of revisions independently and not together. Mr.Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners again taking to the scope of revision under Sec. 36 as well as 37(1) of the Act, 1972 attempted to submit that power of the revisional authority under both the provisions are completely distinguishable. Measure of consideration of both the revisions is also completely different. For the provision under Sec. 36 of the Act, 1972, it is submitted that the revisional authority is required to assess the order of the appellate authority and give its finding undisputedly in exercise of limited exercise of power whereas for the restriction in the provision under Sec. 37(1) of the Act, 1972, Mr.Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that law has been fairly settled that this provision provides a suo motu power to the revisional authority and in worse case there may be revision under Sec. 37(1) of the Act, 1972 after final publication of Record-of-Right where the parties did not get scope of objection case and appeal as well as revision under Sec. - 9, Sec. -15 and Sec. -36 of the Act, 1972 respectively. It is in the above premises, Mr.Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order remains unsustainable and, therefore, this Court should interfere in the impugned order and set aside the same.