LAWS(ORI)-2005-6-13

SATSANG Vs. AKSHAYA KUMAR KHATUA

Decided On June 20, 2005
SATSANG Appellant
V/S
Akshaya Kumar Khatua Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FRAUD , collusion or misrepresentation nullify any order passed by any authority. The allegations of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition are to the same extent.

(2.) THE lands in dispute are situated in Mouza -Sindurpank in the district of Sambalpur. Certain dissensions cropped up inter se between the parties centering round the order passed by the Tahsildar in Mutation Case No. 1176 of 2003. It was alleged by the petitioner that on enquiry it was found that opposite party No. 1 had clandestinely obtained certain orders in his favour from the Tahsildar in consonance with the direction issued by the Consolidation authority in Consolidation Revision Case No. 291 of 2003 behind the back of the Petitioner. The aforesaid Consolidation Revision alleged to have been filed by opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 invoking jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Consolidation, Sambalpur under Section 37(1) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Joint Commissioner who disposed of the Revision Case without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances involved therein and without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner remanded the said case (Consolidation Revision Case No. 291/03) to the Consolidation Officer, Sambalpur. Thereafter no notice was issued to the petitioner by the Consolidation Officer, and the latter by his order dated 24.5.2003, vide Annexure - 12, disposed of the said case ex parte. On the basis of the aforesaid ex parte order of the Consolidation Officer, the Tahsildar, Sambalpur vide his order dated 27.5.2003, Annexure -13, disposed of Mutation Case No. 1176 of 2003. Coming to know all these facts, it is submitted, the petitioner filed a Misc. Case before the Joint Commissioner to recall the ex parte order passed by him in Consolidation Revision Case No. 291/03 but said petition was dismissed by the said authority vide order dated 16.8.2003, Annexure -17. All the aforesaid orders are impugned in this Writ Petition.

(3.) MR . Ratho, learned counsel for the petitioner, forcefully submitted that though the disputed land was recorded in the Major Settlement in the name of the vendors of the petitioner and the same was allotted to them in the concerned consolidation proceeding in 1991, the Consolidation Officer while deciding the Remand Revision Case No. 291/03 did not give notice to the vendors of the petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and equity. According to him, the Consolidation Officer disposed of the case hurriedly without conducting proper enquiry.