PRAFULLA CHANDRA MOHARANA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the present application under Articles. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 5 -1 -1984 made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Mangalpur/Pipili in disposing of Objection Case No. 1205 filed under Section 15 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), copy whereof is Annexure -1, the order dated 28 -8 -1984 passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation. Range -I, Bhubaneswar in Appeal Case No. 57 of 1984 under Section 12 of the Act, copy whereof is Annexure -2 and the order in Revision Case No. 662 of 1985 made on 8th October, 1990 by the Commissioner, Consolidation, Orissa, copy whereof is Annexure -3.

(2.) THE petition is at the instance of Prafulla Chandra Moharana. Mr. C.A. Rao appears in support of the application and Mr. Prusty learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appears for the State. None appears for opposite party No. 5 in spite of notice.

(3.) THE only exception taken is that there is admittedly a registered deed of gift/but the said deed of gift was not accepted on the finding that the same was not valid as it was not accompanied by delivery of possession. It is observed that mere registration of gift deed is not equivalent to delivery of possession and therefore, by the said document, title did not pass from the donor to donee. Objection Case No. 1195 was thus disallowed. The appellate authority has recorded that the sole question for consideration was as to whether the Consolidation Officer committed any error in disallowing the claim of the objector in respect of the land covered by the deed of gift. By quoting Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, the concept of acceptance by donee was considered. it is concluded that the impugned deed is a void document as the possession was not delivered and on that ground the appeal was dismissed. The revisional authority dismissed the revision case recording that in the instant case the deed of gift made by the donor was fraudulently executed. The case of fraud was considered and by discussing certain reported decisions, it was held that the circumstances leading to the deed of gift were not within the competence of the donor. From the deposition -of the petitioner and the witnesses it is found to be proved beyond doubt that the suit land is under the possession of the opposite parties and no title passed by deed of gift and the said deed of gift was void ab initio as it was executed by a Paradanashin illiterate lady.