LAXMAN SENAPATI Vs. HARI SENAPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ application challenging the orders under Annexure-1 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Anandapur in Objection Case No. 217 of 1992 and order under Annexure-3 passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation in Consolidation Revision Case No. 476 of 1994 and further prays to restore the order passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Jajpur in Appeal Case No. 138 of 1993 (Annexure-3).

(2.) The dispute relates to C.S. Plot No. 594, Ac.0.11 and C.S. Plot No. 595, Ac.0.04 under C.S. Khata No. 12, which originally stood recorded in the names of Goura, Deba and Nityananda, three sons of late Bali Senapati, the common ancestors of the petitioner and opposite party Nos. 1 to 4. During the Consolidation Proceeding Plot No. 594 was divided into two L.R. Plots, i.e., L.R. Plot No. 594, Ac.0.09 and L.R. Plot No. 594/1147, Ac.0.02. The following admitted genealogy gives the relationship of the petitioner and opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 inter se. During the consolidation operation, the petitioner-Kangali Senapati filed Objection Case No. 217 of 1992 before the Consolidation Officer claiming to record L.R. Plot No. 594/1147, Ac.0.02 which is part of C.S. Plot No. 594, Ac.0.11 in his favour. The basis of his claim in the sale deed executed by Indramani Senapati in his favour. The petitioner's case was that the three brothers, Goura, Deba and Nityananda got their joint family properties partitioned in Partition Suit No. 667 of 1931-32. As per the compromise decree, Nityananda, the father of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 got a total of two acres of land out of the family property. Goura and Deba continued to remain joint in mess and property. In order to get possession of his share of two acres, Nityananda filed Execution Case No. 333/167 of 1933-34. In the execution case he got possession, as per the report of the Kanungo, of an area of Ac.0.02? ... " out of Sabik Plot No. 594 and Ac.0.01? ... " from Sabik Plot No. 595 along with other undisputed lands. Thus, Nityananda got a total area of four decimals from Plot Nos. 594 and 595. While continuing in jointness with Goura, Deba expired issueless prior to 1943-44, as a result of which his ? ... "rd interest in the suit plots devolved on Goura, who became the owner of the ? ... "rd interest in the suit land. Indramani, the father of opposite party Nos. 3 and 4, transferred Ac.0.03 ? out of his share in favour of the petitioner in 1970 by registered sale deed.

(3.) Apparently, the present opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 were not parties to the objection case before the Consolidation Officer. On perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner and filed enquiry report submitted by the Amin, the Consolidation Officer came to hold that since Deba died issueless, both branches of Goura and Nityananda are entitled to half share each in suit plot Nos. 594 and 595, and that Indramani having sold his share to the petitioner, the latter alone became entitled to half share and the opposite parties, namely, Jada and Dahala, sons of Indramani should be deleted from the record. Accordingly, by his order dated 29.01.1993 under Annexure-1 the Consolidation Officer directed to record plot No. 595, Ac.0.07 instead of Ac.0.04 in favour of Hari and Banamali (present opposite party Nos. 1 and 2) and Plot No. 594, Ac.0.06 instead of Ac.0.09 and Plot No. 594/1147 Ac.0.02 in favour of the petitioner, Kangali Senapati.