SANKARSAN BEHERA Vs. COMMISSIONER, CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner assails the judgment dated 25.11.2002 passed by learned Commissioner, Consolidation, Cuttack, opposite party no.1, in Consolidation Revision Case No.1050/1998 whereby the revision application filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for brevity) was dismissed.

(2.) The facts of the case are not in dispute. The L.R. Plot No.180 Ac.0.14 pertaining to L.R. Khata No.167 corresponding to M.S. Plot No.180 measuring Ac.0.14 of Khata No.118. It is not disputed that the property belongs to one Subhadra Dei, W/o. Narahari, Village-Deika. She was allotted with the said land in a family partition. She transferred the land to Surendranath Behera-opposite party no.4, who is opposite party no.1 in the court of the Commissioner, vide Registered Sale Deed No.2440 dated 5.5.1958 with a condition to pay the consideration money at the time of endorsement of ticket. But when opposite party no.4 was unable to pay the aforesaid consideration money to the vendor-Subhadra Dei, she cancelled the above sale deed vide Registered Cancellation Deed No.3143 dt.28.5.1958. After that Subhadra Dei again transferred the suit land to one Upendra Behera vide Registered Sale Deed No.3144 dated 28.5.1958 on payment of lawful consideration money. Then Upendra Behera sold the disputed land to the present petitioner and Rabindranath Behera-Proforma Opposite Party No.5 (who is opposite party no.2 in the Court of the Commissioner, vide Registered Sale Deed No.5977 dated 6.12.1963 and they claimed to be in peaceful possession of the land in question since the date of purchase.

(3.) Hence the petitioner and proforma opposite party no.5 filed Objection Case No.1086/1996 under Section 9(3) of the Act to record the land in question by virtue of the aforesaid Deed of Sale of the years 1963. Learned Consolidation Officer, Kujanga, opposite party no.3, having heard the objection disallowed the claim of the petitioner and proforma opposite party no.5 vide order dated 22.8.1997. Being aggrieved by the order of opposite party no.3, the present petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Range-II, Cuttack, opposite party no.2, and his appeal was registered as Appeal No.49/1997. Learned opposite party no.2 by virtue of a speaking order dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of opposite party no.3 vide order dated 20.1.1998. Thereafter the petitioner has filed a revision case being Con. Revision Case No.1050/1998 before opposite party no.1, which was dismissed on 25.11.2002 upholding the concurrent findings of opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.3.