SUDHIR RANJAN ACHARYA Vs. HARIHARA MOHAPATRA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri N.P. Parija, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri B.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the contesting opposite parties.

(2.) The Civil Miscellaneous Petition involves an attempt of the petitioner before the Land Acquisition Authority in L.A. Case No. 21 of 2011 for staying the further proceeding of the Land Acquisition Case indicated hereinabove for the pendency of a Consolidation Revision before the Consolidation Authority, i.e., Land Reforms Commissioner, Orissa, Cuttack involving declaration of title of the petitioner vide R.C. No. 6 of 2006. Taking the plea that unless the right of the party involving the disputed property decided in final adjudication of the Consolidation Revision, i.e., R.C. No. 6 of 2006, finality involving L.A. Case No. 21 of 2011 will not only seriously prejudice the petitioner but will also lead to multiplicity of litigations. For the pendency of the Consolidation Revision, a request was made to the Land Acquisition Authority for staying the proceeding involved therein. Considering the submission of the petitioner herein and the opposite parties also parties in the Land Acquisition proceeding, the Land Acquisition Authority in disposal of the application to stay the Land Acquisition proceeding rejecting the application, observed that passing of any order in the Consolidation revision would have no bearing in the Land Acquisition proceeding.

(3.) Assailing the impugned order, Shri Parija, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that for the involvement of part of the disputed property involving Land Acquisition proceeding in the Consolidation revision, right of the petitioner over the part of that property involving the Land Acquisition proceeding unless be finally adjudicated by the Consolidation Authority, the Land Acquisition Authority in spite of appearance of the petitioner therein will not be in a position to take a decision on the claim of the petitioner herein. It is under the circumstances, Shri Parija, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while submitting that the trial Court has failed in appreciating this legal aspect of the matter, makes a request to this Court for interfering with the impugned order, setting aside the same and thereby directing the Land Acquisition Authority to stall the proceeding till a decision is taken in the Consolidation revision involved herein.