GOLAM KHAN Vs. COMMISSIONER CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 27.11.1995 passed by the Consolidation Commissioner, Bhubaneswar in Consolidation Revision Case Nos. 263 and 264 of 1983 whereby the Consolidation Commissioner disposed of the said two revisions under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred as to 'the Act').

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: The writ petitioners are the permanent residents of village Bhandagar under Kakatpur Police Station in the district of Puri. Their case is that originally one Bahudi Khan was the owner of the land, who died in the year 1929 leaving behind his three sons, namely, Hamid, Rahim and Ashad Ali and three daughters, namely, Saiban, Haluson and Saliman. Hamid had only one son named Idrish who died on 23.7.1969. The intermediary estate vested in the year 1963 64. A claim case was filed by Idrish Khan, Golam Khan, Murtaja Khan, Mustafa Khan, Solema Bibi, Hawa Bibi and Khatija Bibi. The said claim case was settled in favour of the above seven persons in respect of villages -Lataharan, Bhandaghar and Sadans. But the land situated in village Patasundarpur, being sthitiban in character, was not vested under the Estates Abolition Act. Hence, there was no settlement in respect of the disputed property situated at Patasundarpur.

(3.) DURING the year 1973, settlement operation began and during the settlement operation, the land in question was recorded in favour of the petitioners and Khatija Bibi, Marium Bibi and others raised no objection to such recording in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, consolidation operation started in respect of villages Patasundarpur, Lataharan, Bhandagarh and Sadansa. During preparation of the second part land register, the disputed land was recorded in favour of five members, namely, the petitioners, Khatija Bibi and Solema Bibi. Against such entry in the land register of village Patasundarpur, an objection under Section 9(3) of the Consolidation Act was filed by Marium and others and another objection was filed by Golam Khan and others to delete the name of Solema Bibi. The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 20.9.1982 rejected the objection filed by the opposite parties on the finding that the land register had been correctly prepared in favour of the rightful owners. He further observed that Marium and her three sisters had never come forward to claim the land. It is the son of Marium (Jilani Khan) who came up with the above objection case. Further, the Consolidation Officer held that Hamid died in the year 1935 and his four daughters were not in possession over the disputed land. It was also held by the Consolidation Officer that the four daughters of Hamid Khan remained silent till the death of Idrish Khan (died on 23.7.1969). After the death of Idrish Khan, his widow Solema transferred some landed properties to different persons in the years 1971 and 1974. Marium and her sisters never objected to such sales. On the said ground, the Consolidation Officer rejected the names of the objectors (opposite parties) and allowed the objection case of the present petitioners. He specifically held that the sale deed executed by Solema Bibi was valid as the same had not been challenged in the Civil Court. The opposite parties, against the order of the Consolidation Officer, preferred two appeals before the Deputy Director, Consolidation registered as Consolidation Appeal Nos. 534 and 556 of 1'982 and the same were dismissed on 10.1.1983 by the appellate Court. Two revisions in case Nos. 263 and 264 of 1983 were filed before the Consolidation Commissioner who, vide his order dated 9.6.1983 allowed the revisions and directed to delete the names of opposite party Nos. 4 to 8 from the land register and record the names of the petitioners exclusively in respect of the disputed properties. In the land register, it was found that Solema Bibi had already transferred her entire share and the share of her husband to different persons. Hence, the Commissioner held that she had no interest in the property left by Bahudi Khan and the sisters of Idrish Khan even after the death of their brother Idrish also did not file any suit to recover their share. Further, it was held that the present opposite parties had no right, title and interest in respect of the disputed properties in village Patasundarpur and accordingly the Consolidation Commissioner directed to record the disputed land in favour of these four persons including the petitioners.