NINIMA MAHAPATRA Vs. COLLECTOR, BARGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The stand of the Opposite Party No.1 is that although the land was used for the purpose of Dhanuyatra for well over six decades at the time of filing of the reply by the Opposite Party i.e., 4/3/2013, the final Record of Rights published on 14/11/2000 under the OCH and PFL Act has been recorded in the name of Radheshyam Pujhari, Sitaram Pujhari, Janakiram Pujhari, Ghanashyam Pujhari, Tulasiram Pujhari and Nabinashyam Pujhari all are the sons of Nilamani Pujhari. It is stated that the M.S. record was prepared and published in the year 1970. It is further stated in para 8 that the Opposite Party No.1 has no scope to make any changes in the said ROR under the OCH and PFL Act.

(2.) Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners states that the Petitioners will avail the remedy by filing a revision petition under Sec. 36(1) of the OCH and PFL Act, 1972 against the ROR published on 14/11/2000.

(3.) It is further directed that if the said petition be filed on or before 12/9/2022 along with an application for condonation of delay, citing the pendency of the present writ petition, as the reason for the delay, it will be considered in accordance with law by the Revisional Authority. In such event the Revisional Authority will dispose of the petition within a period of four months thereafter. Till such time the status quo order passed by this Court on 11/1/2013 will continue.