REBATI ROUT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A .S. Naidu, J 1. The order dated 9.8.1994 (Annexure -4) passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Settlement and Consolidation, Orissa Bhubaneswar in Revision Case Nos. 295 -299 of 1998 confirming an order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Kheranga in the district of Balasore in Objection Case Nos. 225 -229 of 1991 and 190 of 1990 setting aside the order dated 16.4.1993 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Appeal Case Nos. 42 -46 of 1999 is assailed in this Writ application invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) PETITIONER Rebati Rout claiming to be the daughter of one late Dasarathi Rout put forth her claim on the disputed land which stood recorded in favour of Dasarathi Rout along with his co -sharers in the Major Settlement After the Mouza in question came within the fold of consolidation operation in consonance with the notification issued under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the land register was prepared in which the disputed land was recorded in the name of Sanatan Rout who claimed to be the son and successor of late Dasarathi Rout. Thereafter petitioner Rebati Rout filed four Objection Cases being numbered as 225 -229 of 19991 challenged the said recording inter alia on the ground that she being the daughter of late Dasarathi Rout, Sanatan was not the only legal heir and the lands are to be recorded in her name also. Objection Case No. 190 of 1990 was filed by one Ananda Barik claiming his title over one of the disputed plots by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 24.4.1979. The Consolidation Officer who heard the Objection Cases after discussing all the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence adduced in the case both oral and documentary came to the conclusion that petitioner Rebati Rout had totally failed to substantiate her claim that she was the daughter of late Dasarathi Rout In view of the aforesaid conclusion the Objection cases filed by Rebati Rout were dismissed and the disputed lands were directed to be recorded in the name of Sanatan. Being aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer, petitioner Rebati Rout preferred Appeal Case Nos. 42 -46 of 1991 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bhadrak. The Deputy Director, however, relying upon an enquiry report made by the Sub -Inspector of Schools to the effect that Rebati Rout was the daughter of Dasarathi came to the conclusion that Rebati Rout being the daughter in consonance with the Hindu Succession Act she had a right to succeed to her father's property The appellate authority accordingly directed that the lands should be recorded in the names of both Rebati Rout and Sanatan Rout jointly. The said order of the appellate authority was challenged by Sanatan Rout in four Revisions filed under Section 36 of the Act before the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Bhubaneswar who after hearing the counsel for the parties declined to rely upon the enquiry report of the Sub -Inspector of Schools on the ground that the said report had not been made in consonance with direction issued by any authority, nor any judicious procedure had been followed. Discussing the materials available, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that Rebati Rout had failed to adduce any evidence excepting the report of the Sub -Inspector of Schools which was inadmissible and failed to prove that she was the daughter of Dasarathi Rout. On the basis of such conclusion, the revisions were allowed. The order passed by the Deputy Director was set aside and the findings and conclusions arrived by the Consolidation Officer were confirmed.

(3.) MR . Kar, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting Opp. Parties, took a preliminary objection to the effect that one Writ Application challenging the orders passed in four Objection cases, four Appeals and four Revision Cases is not maintainable and the Writ application should be dismissed on that ground alone. According to him, Rebati Rout did not produce her school leaving certificate nor did adduce any evidence worth -the -name to prove that she was the daughter of late Dasarathi Rout and the Consolidation Officer had rightly rejected all the Objection Cases filed by her under Section 9(3) of the Act. According to Mr. Kar, the so -called enquiry report of the Sub -Inspector of Schools was a nullity in the eye of law inasmuch as neither Sanatan nor any other contesting opposite parties were examined in course of the enquiry. No notice was given to them and the entire episode culminated in submission of the report by the Sub -Inspector of Schools, behind the back of the contesting opposite parties and thus the same cannot be accepted as a piece of evidence. It was further submitted that neither the author of the said report was examined nor any material was produced to reveal the source of it. According to them, the report being an inadmissible piece of document the Commissioner had rightly rejected the same.