BHAJAMAN PARIDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 15th February, 1997 in R.P. Case No. 2183/92 (Armexure 3) passed by the Commissioner of Consolidation, opposite party No. 2, mainly on the ground that the said order has been passed dismissing the Revision without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and misconstruing the provisions of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Rules framed thereunder.

(2.) THE dispute relates to lands situated in village Ola under Nimapara Police Station in the district of Puri which the petitioner claims to have purchased by a registered sale deed dated 10th October, 1984 from opposite party No. 6, Kumkum Mani Mohanty. Admittedly one Gobardhan was the exclusive owner of the said land. Gobardhan had two sons, namely, Braja and Jayakrushna. Braja died in the year 1922 leaving behind his son Natabar. Jayakrushna, brother of Braja, died in the year 1924 leaving behind his daughter Kumkum (opposite party No. 6). Natabar has two sons, namely, Rama and Laxman, opposite parties 4 and 5 respectively. Natabar claimed to have been adopted by Jayakrushna. In the record of rights prepared in the 1927 Settlement, the disputed lands stood recorded in the name of Natabar. Natabar died in the year 1975. Thereafter there was an amicable partition between Rama and Laxman. After the village Ola came under consolidation by virtue of Notification issued under the Act, Land Register was prepared and the disputed lands were recorded in the name of Laxman (opposite party No. 5) in the Land Register. No objection was filed under Section 9(3) by any of the parties challenging the said recording as stipulated under Section 9(3) of the Act. After observing all paraphernalia, Land Register wag published under Section 13 of the Act in the year 1980. In the year 1984 the present petitioner purchased the disputed land from Kumkum (opposite party No. 6) who happens to be the daughter of Jayakrushna. Thereafter objection was filed by the petitioner disputing the recording of the disputed land made in the name of opposite party No. 5. The said objection though stated to have been filed under Section 9(3) of the Act, was treated to be one under Section 15(1) of the Act by the consolidation authorities.