ANANTADAN SUNA Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER, SETTLEMENT AND CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Neelakantha Panda, learned counsel for the opposite party No.4 and Mr. Dillip Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite party Nos.1 to 3.

(2.) The petitioners in this writ petition seek to assail the order dtd. 6/11/2007 (Annexure-1) passed by the Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Berhampur in S.R.P. No. 802 of 2006 filed by the opposite party No.4.

(3.) Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the opposite party No.4 filed the aforesaid revision to correct the final R.O.R. and the map in respect of Hal Plot No. 204, Holding No.198 to an extent of Ac.0.08 decimals situated in village Kurlughati under Nabarangpur Tahasil in the district of Nabarangpur (for short, 'the case land'), on the basis of his possession and succession. The revisional authority without condoning the delay proceeded with the matter. At the stage of final hearing, the Joint Commissioner without assigning any good reason condoned the delay in filing the revision petition holding that the land is recorded in the status of "Gramakantha" and remitted the matter back to the Tahasildar, Nabarangpur-opposite party No.3 to cause a field inspection and effect correction of the map and record the case land in favour of the Opp. Party No.4 (petitioner therein) on the basis of the possession and entitlement. It is his submission that Sec. 15 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (for short, 'the Act') confers a power on the Board of Revenue/Commissioner to correct the R.O.R. He has no jurisdiction to delegate such power to the Tahasildar, Nabarangpur-Opposite Party No.3 to effect correction in the ROR or map without any specific direction thereto. The Tahasildar, Nabarangpur-opposite party No.3 while acting upon the direction of the Joint Commissioner under Sec. 15 of the Act, exercises power under Rule 34 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962 (for short, 'the Rules') and cannot take a final decision with regard to entitlement of the party. He can only give effect to the correction, if any, in the R.O.R. pursuant to the direction of the Joint Commissioner under Sec. 15 of the Act. In support of his case, he relied upon the decision in the case of Sarat Chandra Sahu -v- Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Orissa, Cuttack, reported in 82 (1996) CLT-321, wherein it has been held at paragraph-10 as follows: