NITYANANDA MOHANTY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ application challenges the legality of the orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities in Annexure-5 and 6.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the Mouza in which the disputed land situates came within the purview of the consolidation operation in the 1979-80. The disputed land appertains to consolidation plot No. 296 under Chakka No. 106 and Khata No. 172 in Mouza Bisipada. The said plot was recorded in the name of one Mathurananda Mohanty, the predecessors of the petitioner and opposite party No. 32. After closure of the consolidation operation, notification under Section 41 was published on 19.7.1982 and patta was issued to the petitioner on 22.7.1983. After obtaining patta, the petitioner developed the plot and remained in enjoyment thereof for almost a decade. In the year, 1993, the opposite parties 3 to 31 filed a Revision before the Commissioner, Consolidation, Cuttack under Section 37(1) of the Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. In the said Revision. It was alleged by the said opposite parties that chakka No. 106 which was allotted in favour of the petitioner was being used by them as a public road to approach the Cuttack, Govindpur Canal Road and in the final consolidation proceeding it has been wrongly allotted in favour of the petitioner. It was also contended by the said opposite parties in the Revision that adjacent owner of Chakka No. 106 namely Dhuruba Charan Mallick was agreeable to donate Ac.0.04 decimals of land to the petitioner in exchange of the land which was proposed to be used as a road. A prayer was made in the Revision to modify the Chakka No. 106 which had been allotted to the petitioner during the consolidation operation. Though such revision was filed on false and frivolous grounds, the Commissioner accepted the revision filed almost after 10 years, after consolidation operation was completed and remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer, Cuttack Sadar for fresh adjudication of under Section 19 of the Act. After remand, the Consolidation Officer disallowed the claim of the opposite parties. As against this order of the Consolidation Officer, the opposite parties carried an appeal before the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Cuttack. In appeal, the order of the Consolidation Officer was set aside and it was directed that the Chakka No. 105 be allotted in favour of the petitioner and Chakka No. 106 be used for construction of the road. Challenging the said order of the appellate authority, the petitioner filed a Revision. The Revisional having been dismissed, the writ application has been filed.

(3.) Shri Mohapatra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that during consolidation operation Chakka No. 106 had been allotted in favour of the petitioner and after grant of patta he developed the land and remained in possession thereof for about 10 years. There was no objection from any corner during the aforesaid period and suddenly in the year 1993 a Revision was filed by the opposite parties 3 to 31 under Section 37(i) of the Act before the Commissioner, Consolidation. It was further submitted by Shri Mohapatra that there being no material on record to show that at any point of time the alleged road existed covering the Chakka No. 106, there was no necessity to entertain the Revision filed at belated stage.