BHAGABAN JENA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the present writ application seeks to challenge the Order dated 8.12.2003 passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation, Cuttack rejecting Consolidation Revision Case No. 159 of 2002 filed under Section 37(1) of the Consolidation Act, 1972, seeking correction of errors in the Hal map, pertaining to Plot No. 832, under Hal Khata No. 314 corresponding to Sabik Plot No. 666, measuring an area of Ac.0.180; on the ground of delay.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the disputed land pertaining to Hal Plot No. 832 under Khata No. 314, stands recorded in the names of the petitioners who are landless Scheduled Caste persons. The petitioners have constructed their homestead on the said land and the Hal R.O.R. for the aforesaid plot has also been issued in favour of the petitioners. It is submitted that although necessary R.O.R. has been issued in the names of the petitioners, later on, while comparing the sabik and Hal map of the suit land, they noticed that the Hal map has not been prepared in conformity with the sabik map. As a consequence of such wrong recording in the Hal map, the petitioners' varendah, latrine as well as certain valuable trees planted by them have been shown in the Hal map, in an adjoining plot. Therefore, the petitioners filed an amendment petition before the Consolidation authorities to effect necessary correction in the Hal map and, therefore, filed a revision application under Section 37(1) of Consolidation Act.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submits that the case laws relied upon by the Commissioner to reject the Revision petition, if read in their proper context, would in fact, on the contrary, support the contention of the petitioners. In the case of Gulzar Khan v. Commissioner of Consolidation and Ors. 1993 (I) OLR -194 and in the case of Ghasiram Rana v. State of Orissa and Ors. 81 (1996) C.L.T. 279, this Court has categorically indicated that Section 37 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Consolidation Act, 1972) does not prescribe any period of limitation and, therefore, at the outset, learned Counsel of the petitioner submits that the finding of the learned Commissioner of Consolidation that the revision petition was barred by limitation, is wholly unjustified and incorrect.