BATAKRUSHNA SAHOO Vs. COMMISSIONER, CONSOLIDATION, ODISHA, BHUBANESWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition involves a challenge to the quashing of orders under Annexures-1 and 2 and thereby affirming the order under Annexure-3.

(2.) Factual background involved in the case is that all the proceedings involved herein have been exercised by the competent authority under the provision of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (for short "The Act, 1972"). These proceedings have also a bearing in the W.P.(C).Nos.4603, 4604, 4605, 4606 and 4608 all are of 2016 involving similar set of objection cases from very beginning. Fact reveals, initially 5 objection cases i.e. Objection Case Nos.2512, 1511, 2395, 2475 and 2629 all of 1981 were filed under Sec. 9 (3) of the Act, 1972 as seen from Annexure-2 involving the writ petition. Except one objection case i.e. Objection Case No.2395 filed by one Kasinath was partly allowed, all others were rejected.

(3.) To support his case on the very grounds raised hereinabove, Mr.Bose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner here also relies catena of decisions such as in the case of Bhramarbara Sahoo and Ors. Vs. State of Orissa, rep. thr. The Secretary, Revenue Office at Secretariat, Bhubaneswar and Ors, 2021 (II) OLR 1039, a judgment of this Court in the case of Ramgopal Khadiratna and another Vs. State of Orissa, represented through the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and Others in W.P.(C).No.19172 of 2009 decided on 13/9/2019. Mr.Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in disposal of Appeal Case No.2464 of 2008 in the case of Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur Vs. Kirandeep Kaur and Ors. decided on 3/4/2008 and taken support the view thereof of the Hon'ble Apex Court in support of his claim on the Revision being barred by limitation. Written note is also filed on behalf of the petitioner to framework of the case history, grounds as well as the decision in his support. In the written notes, learned counsel for the petitioner also attempted to distinguish the citations at the instance of learned State Counsel.