KRUPASINDHU SETHY Vs. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS the subject matter and the point of law involved in these two cases are same, the cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE order dated 8th July, 2003 passed by the Director, Consolidation, Orissa, Cuttack in Revision Petition Nos. 5992/ 1999 and 5490/2002 are assailed in both the writ petitions. The said revisions were filed by opposite party No. 2 invoking jurisdiction Under Section 37(2) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Consolidation Act). The dispute arises out of two objection cases filed by opposite party No. 2 before the Asst. Consolidation Officer, Puri Circle and which were registered as Objection Case Nos. 1200/1992 and 1041/1992. The main grievance of the objector, opposite party No. 2, was that there is discrepancy in the area of Plot No. 513 and the same should be enhanced from Ac.0.10 decs to Ac.0.11 decs and that to plot No. 516 from Ac.0.04 dec to Ac.0.05. The second grievance was to record the names of the present petitioners alongwith them in respect of the suit land. The objection cases were heard by Asst. Consolidation Officer and basing upon an unregistered memorandum of partition (Kachha Farda). The Asst. Consolidation Officer rejected the claim of opposite party No. 2 by his order dated 20.2.1993, vide Annexure -2. Inter alia, challenging the said order, opposite party No. 2 preferred the revision before the Director, Consolidation, Orissa, Cuttack in the year 1999 i.e. after lapse of almost six years. The Director in the impugned order took exception of the fact that Asst.Consolidation Officer had relied upon an unregistered Kachha Farda. The Director, further held that the Asst. Consolidation Officer acted illegally and with material irregularity in disposing of the objection cases in the absence of one of the members of the family being Kanchanabala. It was further held that the Asst. Consolidation Officer had no power to decide a dispute and the order cannot be sustained. With the aforesaid observation the Deputy Director allowed Revision Petition No. 5922/99 and partly allowed Revision Petition No. 5490/2002.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Perused the materials available. It appears that the parties are not in agreement and in fact they are disputing the contentions raised by either party. Law is well settled that the Asst. Consolidation Officer can exercise his power Under Section 9 of the Consolidation Act only if the parties agree and that too on conciliation. He had no jurisdiction to decide a dispute. In view of the aforesaid clear position of law, as the parties did not agree with each other, it was incumbent upon the Asst. Consolidation Officer to refer the dispute to the Court of Consolidation Officer for decision. The Asst. Consolidation Officer acted illegally and with material irregularity in not referring the matter to the Asst. Consolidation Officer for adjudication. Admittedly the Asst. Consolidation Officer has no power to adjudicate any dispute. On this simple ground the orders passed by the Asst. Consolidation Officer cannot be sustained.