PRANAKRUSHNA MOHARANA Vs. SANTILATA SAHU & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the orders under Annexure-1, 2 & 4 passed by the consolidation authorities.

(2.) Brief fact involved in this case is that one Ratnakara Moharanafather of the petitioner and Jemi Moharana are the original owners of the plot Nos.2850 & 2859. After death of Ratnakara Moharana, the petitioner entered into an amicable partition with Jema Moharana. Consequently, a mutual partition deed was executed amongst them. Simultaneously, after publication of the land register, following the provisions under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act hereinafter called as the Act, the petitioner filed an objection case bearing No.2538 of 1988 before the Consolidation Officer seeking partition of the joint family property in between himself and Jemi Moharana relying upon the amicable partition deed and seeking therein to declare the plot No.2850 measuring Acre 0.06 decimals and plot No.2859 measuring Acre 0.07 decimals under Land Record Khata No.476 as non-consolidable of the village. For long time neither there was any hearing of the said case nor there was any communication with regard to the developments in the objection case to the petitioner and in the meantime, after preparation of land register under Section 13 of the Act, the petitioner filed another objection case No.751/210 before the Assistant Consolidation Officer under Section 15 of the Act again praying for passing an order recording the lands in his name on the basis of very same amicable partition. This matter also remained pending. Consequent upon which, the petitioner filed another Objection Case bearing No.455 of 1992 under Section 18 of the Act challenging the preparation of Provisional Consolidation Scheme and finding the land allotted to his share being not recorded in his name.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contented that there was no objection even by the opposite party No.14 in respect of the prayers made by the petitioner at different point of time. In the meantime, the petitioner filed R.P. Case No.3826 of 1992 under Section 37 of the Act in the Court of Director, Consolidation, Orissa to revise the order of the Sub-ordinate Authorities in the matter of publication of land register. While disposing the R.P. Case, the Director by order dated 5.6.1994 directed the Consolidation Officer, Balia to decide the claim of the petitioner afresh after verifying the relevant records and effecting the partition on the basis of amicable partition deed. The Consolidation Officer instead of taking a decision on the Remand R.P. Case No.3826 of 1992, confirmed the Provisional Consolidation Scheme and carved out Chakas in the area. As a consequence of which, Plot Nos.2850 & 2859 of the petitioner were illegally allotted in favour of the opposite party Nos.1 to 6. Petitioner alleged that the husband of the opposite party No.1 remaining as a service holder in the Office of Board of Revenue, Orissa gained over the Consolidation Officer and managed to carve out the plot No.2850 & 2859 in favour of the opposite party No.1 and consequently, remained successful in recording plot No.2841, 2842, 2843 & 2844 in the name of his wife Santilata Sahoo and the same are used as Bari, Coconut Garden and further same are non-consolidable in nature. In spite of petitioner's objecting the claim of opposite party No.1 and establishing his case for having a residential house over the plot No.2850 and that the petitioner was using the plot No.2859 as his Bari for which the same should be declared as non-consolidable, his objections were not taken into account while disposing the Remand R.P. Case. Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.6.1994 passed by the Consolidation Officer in the Remand Revision Petition No.3826 of 1992, the petitioner filed the Consolidation Revision Petition No.33 of 1994 in the Court of Deputy Director, Consolidation, Range-II, Cuttack. Apart from raising all his pleas indicated hereinabove, the petitioner also disclosed that even though the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 had no agricultural land in the area but they have only a Coconut Garden adjoining to plot No.2850. It is further contended that the Consolidation Officer should have also taken into consideration the objection case filed under Sections 9, 15 & 18 of the Act while disposing the Remand R.P. Case.