NILAMANI DASH Vs. GOURISHANKAR DASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition involves a challenge to the quashment of orders at Annexures-1, 3 and 4 involving the writ petition.

(2.) Short background involving the case is that on 25.04.1983 there is final publication of ROR under Sec. 22(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act (for short "the Consolidation Act"). As a consequence, Chaka No.81, L.R. Plot No.299(P), an area of Ac.0.10 decimals was allotted in favour of the petitioners. No objection was being raised by opposite party no.2 at the relevant point of time. Finding there is discrepancy in the field position of the plots involved as well as the map position, petitioners preferred a revision under Sec. 37 of the Consolidation Act on the file of the Joint Commissioner, Consolidation, Sambalpur bearing Revision No.8 of 1998. Opposite parties also simultaneously filed Revision No.175 of 1997 for allotment of an area of Ac.0.10 decimals being wrongly recorded in the name of the petitioners. Consequent upon filing of objection by the respective parties, both the revisions being taken up together were concluded with a direction for remand of the revisions to the Consolidation Officer with specific direction for conducting field enquiry and also taking fresh decision after providing opportunity to the respective parties. Upon remand of the matter, the Consolidation Officer observing that there is discrepancy in the area between the map and field and as it was within the permissible limit further looking to the claim of opposite party no.2, directed for restoration of Ac.0.10 decimals of land in favour of opposite party no.2. Consolidation Appeal No.45 of 1998 preferred by the petitioners on 30.01.1998 the appellate authority on disposal of the Appeal directed to allot Ac.0.10 decimals of Government land in favour of the petitioners and thereby confirmed the order for restoration of Ac.0.10 decimals in favour of opposite party no.2. Consolidation Revision No.161 of 1999 being preferred, the Revisional Authority confirmed the orders of the Authorities below.

(3.) Assailing the impugned order, Miss Dipali Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that though the appellate authority directed to allot Ac.0.10 decimals of land in favour of the petitioner from the Government land to Chaka No.81, in fact there is no land adjoining in the Chaka holding for the intervention of a Canal therein. However, there was some Government land adjacent to Chaka No.82. Further, the revision at the instance of opposite party no.2 having been initiated after fourteen years delay, Miss Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also resisted the entertainment of the revision under Sec. 37(1) of the Consolidation Act after such long delay.