APARTI PRADHAN Vs. DHOBALI SAMANTARAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revisional order of the Consolidation Commissioner, opposite party No. 7 is being impugned in the present application.

(2.) PETITIONER 's case briefly stated is that the Petitioner is the owner in possession of an area of AO. 260 decimals in plot No. 567 of Khata No. 14 in Mouza Nabinpur under Bhubaneswar Police station in the district of Puri and he had been so recorded in the Record -of -Rights finally published on 23 -3 -1962 under Section 116 (2) of the Orissa Tenancy Act. After the said area came under consolidation operation under the provisions of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act '), the Assistant Consolidation Officer, while preparing the land register under Section 6 of the Act registered a dispute case on the rival claims of the Petitioner and opposite parties 1 to 3 and framed some issues and made some enquiries. Ultimately by order dated 30 -8 -1974, the said Assistant Consolidation Officer divided the plot No. 567 into three different plots as plot No. 567, 567/1270 and 567/1271 with area AO. 80, AO. 140 and AO. 40 decimals respectively and he found the Petitioner to be in possession of Plot No. 567 with an area of AO. 80 decimals whereas opposite parties 1 to 3 to be in possession of Plot No. 567/1270 measuring an area of AO. 140 decimals. Recording plot No. 567/1270 in the names of opposite parties 1 to 3 is the subject matter of dispute in the present writ petition. The order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer has been annexed as Annexure -I. After the publication of the land register and the map as provided under Section 6 of the Act, the Petitioner filed his objection under Section 9 (3) of the Act against the recording of AO. 140 decimals of land pertaining to Plot No. 567/1270 in the names of opposite parties 1 to 3. Since the objection could not be disposed of by conciliation under. Section 10 (1) of the Act, the same was forwarded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer to the Consolidation Officer for disposal ' and the Consolidation Officer after duly giving the parties concerned reasonable opportunities of being heard and making an enquiry into the matter, disposed of the same by order dated 3 -3 -1977, annexed as Annexure -4 to the writ petition. The consolidation Officer directed that plot No. 567/1270 measuring an area of 'AO. 140 decimals be recorded in the name of the Petitioner. Against the said order, opposite parties 1 to 3 carried an appeal under Section 12 of the Act which was registered as Appeal case No. 10 of 1977 and was disposed of by the Deputy Director of Consolidations by order dated 22 -8 -1977 which has been annexed as Annexure -4 and the appeal was dismissed. The said opposite parties 1 to 3 carried a revision to the Commissioner under Section 36 of the Act which was numbered as Revision Case No. 99 of 1977 and by the impugned order dated 6 -1 -1979, the Commissioner allowed the revision. It is this order of the Commissioner which is being impugned in the present writ petition.

(3.) MR . Behura, the learned Counsel then urges that the impugned order of the revisional authority namely, the Consolidation Commissioner is based on non -consideration of the materials produced before the Section 10 enquiry and on consideration of the findings of the Assistant Consolidation Officer while preparing the Land Register and, therefore, such an order of the Revisional authority cannot be sustained.