PURNA CHANDRA ACHARYA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE anguish and sentiments expressed by this Court time and again coupled with a command to appoint officers having legal background and well -versed or trained in law to handle proceedings under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act') not only appears to have not been taken note of but also appears to have been brushed aside by the authorities of the State. For the above reasons, this Court is being flooded with petitions seeking exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the legality/perversity and un -tenability of the orders passed by the authorities even belonging to the highest hierarchy under the Act.

(2.) THIS is a petition where the petitioners have called in question the order dated 27.8.1993 passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation, Orissa, Cuttack in R.C. No. 1075 of 1991 annexed as Annexure -2 to the writ petition.

(3.) DURING the consolidation operation, the petitioners filed an objection under Section 9(2) of the Act before the Consolidation Officer -opp. party No. 3 praying for recording of the suit property in the joint names of the petitioners and the opp.party No. 4. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 10.5.1990, after making due enquiry, allowed the said objection and directed to record the land jointly in the names of the petitioners and the opp. party No. 4. The opp. party No. 4 preferred an appeal under Section 12 of the Act before the Deputy Director, Consolidation -opp.party No. 2. The Appellate Authority after hearing the parties by his order dated 28.11.1991 under Annexure -1 to the writ petition dismissed the said appeal. Being aggrieved, the opp.party No. 4 preferred a revision under Section 36 of the Act before the Commissioner, Consolidation, Orissa Cuttack -opp. party No. 1, which was numbered as Revision Case No. 1075 of 1995. The petitioners allege that as the petitioner No. 1 who was looking after the revision had to go for working outside the State, they could not participate in the Revision proceeding and the Commissioner of Consolidation by his order dated 27.8.1993, in the absence of the petitioners, allowed the revision, directing to record the disputed land exclusively in the name of opp. party No. 4. Upon coming to know of such an order, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition challenging the said order passed by the Commissioner of Consolidation, Orissa, Cuttack -opp. party No. 1 and have sought for quashing the said order.