RABINDRANATH DIKHIT Vs. PADMA CHARAN SAMANTA SINGHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE common order dated 26th March, 1991 (Armexure -5) passed by the Commissioner of Consolidation, Orissa, Bhubaneswar in Revision Case Nos. 1315, 1316, 1317 and 1318 of 1986 is assailed in this Writ application invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by petitioner Rabindranath Dixit claiming to be the President of the Block Congress Committee (1), Kakatpur.

(2.) IN course of hearing an application in the shape of a Misc.Case was filed by one Manguli Jena through his advocate for amendment of the cause -title of the Writ application inter alia stating that in the meanwhile petitioner Rabindranath Dixit who had filed the Writ application having been removed from the Presidentship of the Block Congress Committee (I), Kakatpur, and he (Manguli Jena) being in charge of the President is looking after the case, and the name of Rabindranath Dixit and/or his legal heirs substituted in his place in this Writ application be deleted and his (Manguli Jena) name be substituted. But then it appears that although this petition was filed by said Manguli Jena through an advocate, no Vakalatnama to that effect has been filed and, as such, the Misc. Case is not entertained and is dismissed.

(3.) IT is pertinent to mention here that Rabindranath Dixit was not a party before the consolidation authorities. He claimed to be the President of the Block Congress Committee (1), Kakatpur. As has been stated earlier, he was allegedly removed from Presidentship and his successor who filed a Misc.Case through an advocate for being substituted in this Writ application in place of Rabindranath Dixit or his legal heirs has not given power to any advocate to prosecute the Us. In any view of the matter, Shri N.C. Pati, learned counsel for Rabindranath Dixit was present before this Court and in order to avoid multiplicity of litigations he was given opportunity to argue the matter. According to Mr.Pati the Commissioner has acted illegally and with material irregularity in accepting further documents at the revisional stage. It was also forcefully submitted that the settlement records, rent receipts, tenancy ledger and other documents clearly revealed that the Congress Party was the real owner of the disputed land. The Ekpadia produced before the consolidation authorities could not have been accepted. It is further forcefully submitted that the said document had been created for the purpose of litigation and the Commissioner without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the cases, only on the basis of surmises and conjectures and further being influenced by certain influential persons has allowed the Revision Case filed by Sri Padma Charan Samanta Singhar. It is alleged that the conclusions arrived at by the Commissioner are devoid of merit and cannot be sustained.