KANAKMANJARI DAS Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR RAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in the present Writ Petition arises out of a proceeding initiated under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act (hereinafter called 'the Act').

(2.) THE lands in dispute were the absolute properties of Durga Charan Dey who expired in the year 1990. The two Petitioners are the daughters of Durga Charan through his wife late Basanta Manjari. It is alleged that opposite party No. 2 Smt. Amruti Ray was the second wife of Durga Charan. Through Amruti, it is stated, Santosh Kumar Ray, opposite party No. 1 was born. Purshpalata, opposite party No. 3, is the wife of Santosh. After the village in which the lands were situated came within the fold of the Act, opposite party No. 2 claiming to be the wife of late Durga Charan filed Objection Cases before the Consolidation Officer, Balia to get the lands left behind by Durga Charan recorded in her name as well as in the name of her son, opposite party No. 1. The said claim was strongly refuted by the present Petitioners mainly on the ground that Amruti had never married Durga Charan. Thus she could not have claimed to be the wife nor Santosh as the son.

(3.) THE order Annexure -2 was assailed by opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 before the Commissioner of Consolidation, Cuttack, vide Consolidation Revision No. 1356 of 1999. The Commissioner after hearing Learned Counsel for the parties held that the Deputy Director in the appeal had wrongly opined that the Consolidation authorities had no power to adjudicate the matter relating to status of a party. He observed that while deciding the question of right, title and interest of a party, the authorities have jurisdiction to decide the question of status of a person which is consequential. The Commissioner confirmed the findings of the Consolidation Officer to the extent that opposite party No. 2 Amruti was the second wife and opposite party 1 was the son of Durga Charan, but then held that as the second marriage of Durga Charan was celebrated during subsistence of the first marriage, the same was void. As such, Amruti could not claim any title as wife of Durga Charan. But then, opposite party No. 1 Santosh having born out of an invalid marriage was treated to be an illegitimate son and as such was held to be entitled to a share in the property. On the basis of such conclusion the Commissioner allowed the Revision in part. The Commissioner also held that the sale deeds executed by Durga Charan in favour of the opposite parties were valid documents.