BABAJI MAHARANA Vs. TAHASILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order under Annexure-3 so also the order under Annexure-4 to this writ petition.

(2.) In assailing the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the existence of the order dated 16.6.1967 vide Annexure-1 and taking into consideration the Xerox copy of the R.O.R of Mouza, Gokheneswar along with Xerox copy of the trace map of the disputed plot brought by the petitioner, there was no occasion with the competent authority to direct for a fresh inquiry vide order dated 29.5.2006 (Annexure-4) and the direction for fresh inquiry is also taken in absence of any application by either of the contesting parties and it is in these premises, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that not only the order dated 29.5.2006 is bad in law but the report obtained following the above order and the order impugned vide Annexure-3 a development following the order dated 29.5.2006 also become bad. Sri Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the order available at annexure-1 also contended that considering the case of the parties, the competent authority is already in possession of a report involving the petitioner and the original owner based on which, the order vide Annexure-1 was passed, this order remained final and conclusive for not being challenged and no circumstances there was any scope for obtaining a further report.

(3.) Mr. J.R. Dash, learned counsel for the private opposite party on the other hand, opposing the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on the face of the order dated 16.6.1976-the order being passed not involving the present opposite parties, is bad in law. Learned counsel also contended that for the developments taken place in between involving the ceiling proceeding and some other proceedings concerning the disputed properties death of original land owner, there is a sea change in the actual position involving the disputed land and therefore, the direction for fresh inquiry by the order dated 29.5.2006 was very much justified. Further a report having been obtained following the order of the authority dated 29.5.2006 in active participation of the petitioner, it is now not open to the petitioner at this stage to resile from his submission before the inquiry proceeding in compliance of the order dated 29.5.2006 and take a reversal stand. Under the circumstances, Sri J.R. Dash, learned counsel contended that there is no illegality in the impugned orders under Annexure-4 or Annexure-3 in turning down the request of the petitioner for not adhering to the report submitted in between.