TARACHAND AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following questions arise for determination in this case:-

(2.) The petitioner, being the appellant in Appeal Case No.87/83 of the court of the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Sambalpur has assailed the order passed by the learned Joint Commissioner Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur in Consolidation Revision Case No.31/1990 decided on 07.08.2003 whereby the learned Joint Commissioner set-aside the reversing order passed by the learned Deputy Director, Consolidation, Sambalpur. The Deputy Director, Consolidation has directed on the basis of an affidavit filed by the predecessor of interest of the contesting opposite parties before him to record the land in question in the name of the present petitioner. The subject matter of the dispute is L.R. plot no.3656 measuring Ac.0.04 dec. appertaining to L.R. holding No.339 of village Attabira in the district of Bargarh. It corresponds to a portion of plot no.3456 under the major settlement holding No.706. The land was recorded in the sabik measure settlement in the name of Narasingha Mishra. It is the case of revision petitioner before the learned Commissioner that in the year, 1973 he permitted the O.Ps. and his brother Sajan Kumar, on their request, for construction of one shop room to operate a medical store. The said lease was to determine after a lapse of ten years i.e. by the year 1983. The consolidation operation started and the notification under Section 3(1) of the Act was published in the year 1978-79. In the said consolidation operation, the Land Registered was published under Section 9(1) of the Act. Though, the suit land was recorded in the name of late Narasingha Mishra there was a note of forcible possession in favour of the petitioner in the remarks column. Therefore, Narasingha Mishra filed objection case bearing No.1737/321 to delete the remarks of possessions of the petitioner from the record. The objection case was disposed of by the Consolidation Officer. Though, the Consolidation Officer found that Narasingha Mishra has title and ownership with respect to the land in question, he did not pass any order for deletion of the note of forcible possession from the record of rights. No objection case was initiated by the present petitioner before the Consolidation Authority but he being aggrieved by order passed by the Consolidation Officer recording the suit land in the name of the late Narasingha Mishra and not deleting the name of the present petitioner from the remarks column, has filed an appeal before the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Sambalpur. It is argued before the Commissioner that during pendency of the said appeal an affidavit was fraudulently obtained and it was produced before the Appellate Authority and on the basis of the said affidavit, the appellate court allowed the appeal and declared the title over the suit land in favour the petitioner, under the colour of agreement/compromise. This order passed by the learned Deputy Director, Consolidation, Sambalpur on 27.10.1984 was challenged before the Joint Commissioner, Settlement Consolidation, Sambalpur in the year, 1990 i.e. approximately after five years of pronouncing of judgment. The first issue that comes to be decided in this case is whether learned Joint Commissioner was correct in condoning the delay of five years in filing the revision application before the learned Commissioner. Firstly, this Court takes note of the judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag vs. Mst. Katiji, (1987) AIR(Supreme Court) 1353, wherein the Supreme Court has given the following directions to the lower court for deciding the issue of condonation of delay:

(3.) "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.