NIRANJAN OJHA Vs. SIBA PRASAD SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Background involving the case is that the land Register in respect of L.R. Plot No.2525/2799 measuring an area Ac.0.02 decs. was prepared in the name of the deceased father of Petitioner No.1, namely, Dhaneswar Ojha and others based on the Record of Rights published by the Major Settlement Authority. There was no objection to such recording. However, O.Ps.1 and 2 raised objection under Sec. 9 of the O.C.H. and P.F.L. Act, 1972 (herein after called as "Act, 1972) by way of Objection Case No.889/1981 asking the Authority for changing the classification of the said Plot from Gharabari to Rasta and to note their easementary right of pathway over the same by claiming that the said piece of land is the only passage to approach their Plot No.2527 from the public road. This Objection Case was disposed of by the Competent Authority observing the right claimed by the Parties, particularly O.Ps. 1 and 2 had in fact no such easementary necessity but however directed the land to be recorded as Sarbasadharan Khata. Being aggrieved by the direction for particular recording, the Petitioners preferred an Appeal before the Deputy Director of Consolidation registered as Consolidation Appeal No.74 of 1982. In disposal of the said Appeal, the Appellate Authority set aside the order of the Original Authority. Being aggrieved by this order of the Appellate Authority, O.Ps.1 and 2 herein preferred a Revision before the Commissioner, Consolidation. The Revisional Authority while setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority in finality of the Revision confirmed the order passed by the Original Authority constraining the Petitioners to approach this Court by way of O.J.C. No.711 of 1983. This Writ Application came to be disposed of on contest by judgment of this Court on 12/1/1990 where this Court while setting aside the orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities remitted the matter to the Original Authority, i.e., Consolidation Officer to decide the matter afresh but however preventing all the Parties to lead any fresh evidence.

(2.) Mr.S.K.Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended here that looking to the nature of the direction, it appears, this Court in remitting the matter for fresh disposal of the Consolidation Officer had specifically formulated the Issue and asked the Consolidation Officer to answer only in respect of such direction in fresh disposal of the consolidation proceeding. It is pursuant to the remand order of this Court, the original proceeding was commenced. In continuance of the original proceeding and after remand order, it appears, O.Ps.3 to 13 herein in the guise of Villagers filed an Application for their intervention in the main proceeding. This Application having been rejected by the Consolidation Officer, O.P.4, the order of O.P.14 was set aside in the Appeal and O.Ps.3 to 13 in remand of the proceeding were added as O.Ps. In disposal of Objection Case by order dtd. 14/2/1994, the Original Authority while rejecting the claim of O.Ps.3 to 13 by final order also rejected the claim of O.Ps.1 and 2 as finds place at Annexure-2. It is being aggrieved by order dtd. 14/2/1994 passed by the Consolidation Officer, O.Ps.1 and 2 filed Consolidation Appeal No.45 of 1994 on the file of O.P.5, Deputy Director, Consolidation. Learned counsel for the Petitioners claimed, this Appeal was only at the instance of O.Ps.1 and 2 and there was no challenge to such order any further by O.Ps.3 to 13 construed the claim of O.Ps.3 to 13 to come to an end with an order of rejection of their claim. It is in hearing of the Appeal, Mr.Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioners taking this Court to the appellate order contended that when the Appellate Authority came to confirm the order of the Consolidation Officer in respect of the claim of O.Ps.1 and 2 has involved itself in a third case, particularly a case of none involved in the Appeal and thereby entering into confusion in the closure of the Appeal remitted the matter to the Consolidation Officer to come to find the status or title over the Parties additional land of Ac.0.01 dec. awarded in favour of the Petitioners.

(3.) Mr.R.P.Mohapatra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for O.Ps.14 to 16 even though attempted to justify the order appellate order and the revisional order but unable to differ from the claim of the Petitioners that once the High Court has directed the Original Authority to adjudicate the proceeding in a particular manner, there was no scope for the Appellate Authority or the Revisional Authority to decide contrary and/or beyond the scope available under the remand order.