NITYANANDA PANIGRAHI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of opp. party No. 1. the Commissioner of Consolidation dated 27 -3 -1991. annexed as Annexure -5, disposing of six consolidation revision cases together is being challenged by this single writ petition on the ground that the revisional authority erroneously reversed the decision of the appellate authority and confirmed the decision of the original authority on non -consideration of the materials on record and on erroneous view of the legal position.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ application may be stated hereunder : Nityananda Panigrahi, petitioner No. 1, filed four objection cases under Section 9 (3) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act') against different opposite parties inter alia on the ground that though the objector has purchased the property under registered sale deed but the property in the land register stands recorded in the name of the opposite parties. All these four objection cases were heard together and disposed of by a common order by the Consolidation Officer and all the objection cases were rejected. The order of the Consolidation Officer has been annexed as Annexure -3. The objector claimed title to the disputed land on the basis of sale deed executed by Sara, widow of the recorded owner Hari Panigrahi on 3 -5 -1929 to Achuti Panigrahi and three others. But the land stood recorded in the land register in the name of the purchasers in Court auction. As a money suit had been decreed against Hari Panigrahi (M.S. No. 1213/1918) on 2 -12 -1918 and in execution of the said decree the property was sold on 16 -11 -1928 and the sale was confirmed on 2 -1 -1929 and the purcha -sers obtained survey certificate and got their names entered in the tenant's ledger on 2 -8 -1931. Against the aforesaid order of the Consolidation Officer four appeals were preferred by the objector which were registered as Appeal Case Nos. 178, 179, 180 and 181 of 1985 and they were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment on 28 -5 -1986, annexed as Annexure -4. The appellate authority allowed three appeals, namely, Appeal Case Nos. 178, 180 and 181 of 1985 and directed recording of L.R. Plot Nos. 882/4808, 889, 884 and 883 of L. R. Khata No. 226 and Plot Nos. 833, 853 and 856 of L.R. Khata No. 251, and Plot Nos. 879 and 839 of L.R. Khata No. 85 to the names of the appellants. He, however, dismissed Appeal Case No. 179/85 which related to claim of right over plot Nos. 829, 831, 882, 885 and 832/ 4807 on the ground that a claim of sikimi right cannot be granted by the consolidation authority. Against the aforesaid common order of the appellate authority six consolidation revision cases were filed by different persons who were respondents before the appellate authority The Commissioner of Consolidation disposed of all these revision cases together by order dated 27 -3 -1991 and set aside the orders of the appellate authority passed in Appeal Case Nos. 178, 180 and 181 of 1981 and confirmed the orders of the Consolidation Officer and so far as the order passed in Consolidation Appeal Case No. 179/85 by the appellate authority is concerned, the said order was sustained. The present writ application has been filed challenging the aforesaid orders of the revisional authority.

(3.) MR . Mishra for the petitioner, on the other hand, contends that since the question of law involved is similar, a single writ petition would be maintainable.