KESHAB CHARAN SAHOO Vs. MAHANI CHARAN ROUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ application calls in question the legality of the orders passed by the authorities under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act (hereinafter called 'the Act').

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he purchased Ac.0.52 decimals land pertaining to M.S. Plot No. 1488 under M.S. Khata No. 148 and the same has been reflected in the M.S. record of rights published in the year 1982. He has been paying rent to the State Government in respect of the said land and rent receipt for the years 1984, 1989, 1991, 1994, 1996 and 1997 in respect of M. S. Khata No. 148 covering the aforesaid plot have been annexed to the writ application. His grievance is that during consolidation operation as against plot No. 1488 the area has been reflected as Ac.0.45 decimals instead of Ac.0.52 decimals and, therefore, he filed Objection Case No. 1805 of 1992 before the Consolidation Officer for correction of the map on the basis of the record of right, rent receipt and his possession over the same. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objection by order dated 18.5.1994 holding that the area cannot be enhanced to Ac.0.52 decimals. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed Consolidation Appeal Case No. 25 of 1994 before the Deputy Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Bhadrak and the same having been dismissed by order dated 5.10.1994, he filed Consolidation Revision Case No. 1271 of 1994 before the Joint Commissioner of Settlement and Consolidation, Bhubaneswar. The Revisional Court dismissed the revision by - order dated 21.12.1996 and further reduced the area from Ac.0.45 decimals to Ac.0.43 decimals. Challenging the aforesaid order, the writ application has been filed.

(3.) SHRI Dash, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 1 contended that a record of right neither creates nor extinguishes title. When M.S. Map is prepared, not only the records are looked into but also possession of the parties are considered. The petitioner being in possession of only Ac. 0.43 decimals of land out of plot No. 1488, the same has been rightly reflected in the map and accepted by the Courts below. Referring to the grounds taken in the writ application, Shri Dash also contended that the petitioner never claimed to be in possession of Ac.0.52 decimals and has stated in the grounds that he was in possession of Ac. 0.50 decimals in respect of plot No. 1488.