KRUSHNA, CHANDRA PATNAIK Vs. COMMISSIONER, CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is directed against the Order Dated 12th September, 1997 passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation, Bhubaneswar in Revision Case No. 559 of 1996 confirming the Order Dated 31st August, 1996 passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Puri in Consolidation Appeal Case No. 149 of 1994.

(2.) THE main contention of the Petitioner is that though the consolidation authorities have the jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties, they have decided the same illegally and arbitrarily and without considering the facts and circumstances of the matter. Thus, the questions to be decided in the Writ Petition are, whether the Consolidation authorities have the jurisdiction to consider a document as sham transaction which is a void document and whether the findings given by the consolidation authorities are in accordance with law.

(3.) DURING the consolidation operation, the present Petitioner filed an objection with a prayer to record his name in respect of the property in question instead of the name of the present Opposite Party No. 4 and Opposite Party No. 4 objected to the same and stated that the disputed property has been purchased by him from late Radhanath and he has been possessing the same from the date of the purchase and also paying the rent thereof. The specific case of Opposite Party No. 4 is that the disputed property is Bagayat in nature and as such is not coming under the definition of 'Holding' and therefore the Consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the questions as to whether a document is a void document, as alleged by the Petitioner and whether the Civil Court is the only competent Court to decide the same.