BRUNDABAN MOHANTY Vs. ABAKASH ROUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of the Consolidation Commissioner, annexed as Annexnre -2, is being challenged in this writ application, inter alias. on the ground that the sale by the father of a, Hindu minor without permission of the Court being voidable and has to be avoided, the Consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to set aside the sale deed and not to give effect, to the sale in question.

(2.) THE disputed land measuring Ac. 0.06 decimals appertaining to plot No. 206, Khata No. 27 of Sabak Khata which corresponds to Hal Khata No. 6 and Hal Plot No. 333 of mauza Godajanga in the district of Pan Sunei Bewa, the owner of the Sand, gifted the same under a registered gift deed dated 24 -5 -1901 in favour of opp. party No. 1, a minor. The father of said opp. party No. 1 said the land to the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 6 -7 -1966 for a consideration of Rs. 100/ - and according to the petitioner's case, the sale was for purchase of another place of land. Notwithstanding the aforesaid sale by the father -guardian of opp. party No. 1, the draft Record -of -Rights was prepared in the name of opp. party No. 1. Notification under Section 4 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act (hereinafter referred to as the ''Consolidation Act') was made in respect or the area where the disputed land situates in the year 1979 and in the Land Register, the name of opp. party No. 1 stood recorded. The petitioner, therefore, filed an objection under Section 9(3) of the Act before the Assistant Consolidation Officer which was registered as Objection Case No. 354 of 1979. The Assistant Consolidation Officer referred the matter to the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objection of the petitioner.

(3.) THE petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order of rejection which was registered as Consolidation Appeal No. 42 of 1980. Tha Deputy Director by his order dated 26 -2 -1980 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer and directed that the land should be recorded in the name of the petitioner, but possession of opp. party No. 1 should be noted. This direction was given on a finding that opp. party No. 1 continues to be in possession of the disputed land notwithstanding the sale by the father in favour of the petitioner.