ASHEEMA SAMANTRAY Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 29.3.2016 passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation, Bhubaneswar in Revision Case No.577 of 2012.

(2.) Short fact involved in the case is that the land in dispute originally belongs to one Jayakrushna Das. The opposite party No.4- Madan Jena purchased the suit land on behalf of his minor daughter namely Pramila Dei-opposite party No.3 through Registered Sale Deed bearing R.S.D. No.477 dated 2.2.1972 from Jayakrushna Das. At a subsequent stage, this opposite party No.4 transferred the land to the present petitioner-Asheema Samantray through registered sale deed vide R.S.D. No.3625 dated 24.8.1974 and the petitioner is in continuous and exclusive possession of the land since August, 1974. The petitioner filed an objection case under Section 9(3) of the O.C.H. and P.F.L. Act, 1972 registered as Objection Case No.2724/418. One Purnanda Parida and others also filed different objection cases concerning the same land. All these matters were heard together by the Consolidation Officer and the Consolidation Officer rejected the claim of the present petitioner on the premises that the opposite party No.4- Madan Jena had disposed the land on behalf of a minor in contravention of the provisions under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and the sale transaction is not sustainable in the eye of Law. While the matter stood thus, the opposite party no.3 entered into a registered consent deed and the sale took place in between her and the petitioner in the year 1995. It is the admitted case that the petitioner did not take any step to correct the R.O.R. even after the consent deed came into existence and in the meantime, the suit land was once again recorded in the name of Pramila Dei-opposite party No.3. In the meantime one Namita Singh executed a nominal sale deed in her name. It is in the year 2012 the present petitioner initiated a proceeding under Section 37(1) of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act being registered as Revision Case no.577 of 2012.

(3.) On their appearance, the contesting opposite parties therein contended that the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer in the Objection Case No.27775 of 419 on 2.1.1981 being challenged after 31 years, the revision under section 37(1) of the Act was maintainable but did challenge to the claim that the money utilized in the sale was paid by Pramila's maternal grandmother. Further, pleading of the contesting opposite parties was that on 11.4.2012 Pramila Dei-opposite party No.3 sold the property to one Namita Singh by a registered sale deed and Namita Singh got the land mutated in her name by initiating a mutation case bearing No.932/2002. It is also further contended by the contesting opposite parties that the order passed in the objection case in the year 1981 for being challenged, the petitioner is stopped from raising a dispute under Section 37(1) of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act. Further for the development taken place in the matter of mutation case No.932/2012 and a Civil Suit bearing No.237/2012 being sub-judiced, the contesting parties contended that the revision was maintainable.