CHOUDHURY BALARAM DASH Vs. THE COMMISSIONER, CONSOLIDATION, ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application has been filed, inter alia, praying to quash the order dated 30.11.1984 (Annexure -8) passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Range -IV, Cuttack in Appeal Case No. 34 of 1983, arising out of Objection Case No. 1096 of 1981 on the file of the Consolidation Officer, Cuttack Sadar. The said order was confirmed by the Commissioner of Consolidation, Orissa, Cuttack by his order dated 3.7.1996 (Annexure -9) in Consolidation R.C.No. 396 of 1985.

(2.) BEREFT of all unnecessary details, the short facts necessary for appreciating the contentions raised in this writ petition are that the lands measuring Ac. 143.85 decimals situated in village Bhingarpur was a part of the Estate of Choudhury Dinakrushna Das, the ancestor of the petitioner. Ch. Dinakrushna Das left behind his four sons out of whom only the petitioner survives. In consonance with the provisions of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, the intermediary estate of Ch. Dinakrushna Das vested with the State Government in the year 1985. It is averred by the petitioner that he being in exclusive Khas possession of Ac. 19.32 decimals appertaining to Hal Plot No. 1148 out of the intermediary estate, filed an application under Sections 6 and 7 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act for settlement of the said lands in his favour. The said case was registered as O.E.A. Lease Case No. 3048 of 1976 before the Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack. After following all the paraphernalia, the Tahasildar by his order dated 27.1.1978 settled an area of Ac. 12.50 decimals appertaining to Hal Khata No. 439, Plot No. 1148 situated in village Kurnuti, in favour of the petitioner. It is further averred that in consonance with the said settlement, the petitioner was in possession of the said lands as exclusive owner thereof. While the matter stood thus, the mouza in which the lands were situated, were brought within the purview of Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act. After issuance of the Notification to that effect, land registers were prepared in the name of the petitioner. Aggrieved such recording, Opp. Parties 3 to 33 filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer claiming that the lands were donated by the co -sharers of the petitioner in favour of Bhudan Samiti which in turn has allotted different parcels of land in favour of the Opp. Parties. The said contention was strongly repudiated by the petitioner. The Consolidation Officer after being satisfied rejected the objection of the opposite parties and directed to record the lands in favour of the petitioner. The order passed by the Consolidation Officer was challenged by Opp. Parties 3 to 33 before the Deputy Director. The contention of the petitioner all through was that no document was produced in support of the contention raised by the opp. parties that any portion of the land settled in favour of the petitioner was at any point of time donated to Bhudan Samiti. It is also further asserted that except the petitioner no other co -sharer had any right, title and interest to donate any land in favour of Bhudan Samiti and that too, without permission of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the entire claim made by opp. parties 3 to 33 was not tenable in law and the Consolidation Officer has rightly rejected the said application.

(3.) MR . Panigrahi, learned Senor Advocate appearing for the petitioner, reiterated the stand taken by the petitioner and submitted that no iota of evidence, either oral or documentary, was produced before the authorities to reveal that at any point of time any portion of the disputed land was donated to Bhudan Samiti. It is also contended forcefully that though the authorities called upon the opp. parties to produce the document by which the lands were said to have been donated in favour of Bhudan Samiti by any of the co -sharers of the petitioner, the same was not produced. The authorities therefore acted illegally in not drawing any adverse inference. Mr. Panigrahi also contended that the lands have been settled in favour of the petitioner by the authorities under the O.E.A. Act and the consolidation authorities are bound by the order passed by any authority in consonance with any of the State Acts. Therefore, the order settling the land in favour of the petitioner in O.E.A. lease Case No. 3048 of 1976 is binding upon the authorities and the Deputy Director as well as the Commissioner acted illegally with material irregularity and contrary to law in rejecting the order passed by the Consolidation Officer that too in absence of any documentary evidence with regard to the alleged donation.