SUBASH CHANDRA BHOI & ANOTHER Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF SETTLEMENT & CONSOLIDATION, SAMBALPUR & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed as against the order of dismissal passed in the Consolidation Revision No.840 of 1997 and making the following prayer :

(2.) Short background involved in the case is that the Consolidation Officer undertook the duty of preparation of Records of Rights and Maps on the basis of earlier settlement. Following the provision contained in Section 6(I) of the Act, the Director of Consolidation issued Notification on 9.4.1977 by circulating the same in the Orissa Gazettee on 15.4.1977 to publish the initial preparation of Maps and Land Register at a conspicuous place of the village and accordingly, the General Notice was published on 21.6.1977. After disposal of the objections under sections 10 & 11 of the Act and disposal of the consequential appeals under Section 12, the Maps & Land Register in respect of the said village were revised under Section 13 of the Act and published on 28.8.1985. It is claimed that the Consolidation Officials prepared a provisional scheme under Section 17 of the Act and published the same under Section 18 of the Act inviting objections from the public in respect of the Chakas. Provisional Consolidation scheme was published on 5.12.1987 following the provisions contained in Sections 17, 18, 19 & 21 of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act as stated hereinabove. The final proposal of the scheme was confirmed and the conformation was accorded by the competent authority on 18.1.1989. It is contended that while the matter stood as above in the year 1995 the petitioners received notices in the revision cases asking them to appear before the Director, consolidation on 7.4.1995 involving the Consolidation Revision Case Nos.3042 to 3047 of 1994. It is at this point of time, the petitioners came to understand that in the revision case No.3042 of 1994 one Gundam Raja Rao, son of Gundum Venkat Raju -opposite party No.8 has claimed allotment of Chaka and recording of land measuring Ac.4.24 dec. in his favour on the ground of purchase through Registered Sale Deeds pursuant to the permission granted under Section 4(2) of the Act, in Revision Case No.3043/94 one Gundum Venkat Rao, son of Gundum Raja Rao-opposite party No.5 has claimed allotment of Chaka on the land measuring Ac.2.03 dec. in his favour purchased through Registered Sale Deeds pursuant to the permission granted under Section 4(2) of the Act, in Revision Case No.3044/94 the opposite party No.8 has again claimed allotment of Chaka on the land measuring Ac.1.54 dec. purchased vide Registered Sale Deeds pursuant to the permission, in Revision Case No.3045/94 one Gundum Venkata Raju, S/o- Gundum Ramanna(late husband of opposite party No.7) has claimed allotment of Chaka on the land measuring Ac.5.90 dec. purchased vide Registered Sale Deeds pursuant to the permission, in Revision Case No.3046/94 one Gundum Veer Babu, S/o- Gundum Raja Rao(opposite partyNo.6) has claimed allotment of Chaka on the land measuring Ac.0.92 dec. purchased vide Registered Sale Deeds, in Revision Case No.3047/94 the same Gundum Veer Babu, S/o-Gundum Raja Rao(opposite party No.6) has claimed allotment of Chaka on the lands measuring Ac.4.80 dec. purchased vide Registered Sale Deeds. Petitioners claimed that at a later point of time during inspection of the permission granted under Section 4(2) of the Act referred to in the above revisions, the petitioners came to know that after completion of the process for publication of the land register on 28.8.1985 and further more after publication of the Chaka in respect of the village-Larasara on 5.12.1987, the permission have been granted by the Consolidation Officer referring to the plot numbers in the previous major settlement and the details of the irregularities in the grant of permission. The petitioners demonstrating the irregularities contended that the permissions were granted on 3.3.1989 but however, the Director on illegal consideration of the materials remanded the revision cases to the Consolidation Officer to consider the claim of the claimants therein remaining within the frame work of the provisions contained in the Act, 1972. The dispute as regards Chaka No.360 allotted to petitioner No.2 and Chaka No.358 allotted to petitioner No.1 were modified on value and unsustainable pleas. In spite of the fact that no such claim were put forth by the original vendor prior to 3.3.1989 under the Act in favour of the claimants, the entire action is to their prejudice and disadvantage. The petitioners challenged the illegal order dated 27.8.1996 passed by the C.O. by filing the Consolidation appeal No.67/96. It is alleged that the appellate authority having failed in appreciating the issues involved therein illegally rejected the appeal of the petitioners. Petitioners filed Consolidation Revision No.840/1997 and claimed that unfortunately, the revision was also dismissed vide the impugned order herein.

(3.) In assailing the impugned order, Sri Hota, learned counsel for the petitioners claimed that in absence of any claim by the opposite party Nos.5 to 8 to retain the total patch of land and further in absence of an application for modification of the Chaka till 3.3.1989, rejection of the claim of the petitioners is unjustified. It is claimed by the petitioners that no permission under the circumstance could have been granted after 3.3.1989 referring to the previous M.S. Plot numbers. It is further claimed that once the Chakas are confirmed, law also otherwise prohibits for any disturbance in the Chakas. In the above premises, it is contended by Sri Hota, learned counsel that the authorities having failed to appreciate this aspect arrived at wrong and erroneous judgment, which needs to be interfered with and set aside.