PRATAP PATNAIK Vs. COMMISSIONER, CONSOLIDATION AND SETTLEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, who is the purchaser of a piece of land situated in mouza - Mohabhol Sasan, which is in close proximity to the city of Bhubaneswar in an auction sale conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments in pursuance of a permission accorded by the Commissioner of Endowments in a proceeding under Section 19 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, calls in question the legality and propriety of the Order Dated 19.7. 1997 passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation, Bhubaneswar in Revision Case No. 90 of 1995 (Annexure -11) in exercise of power conferred upon him under Section 37 (1) of the Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (for short, the Act'). By the impugned order, the Commissioner interfered with the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer after passage of nearly 20 years.

(2.) A skeletal delineation of the background fact, which has bearing on factual adjudication of the present case, in short, is that the land in question is a public endowment of Bharati Math, a public religious institution, within the meaning of O.H.R.E. Act, 1951 and is under the supervision and control of the Commissioner of Endowments. The land was recorded in favour of Toponidhi Sudarsan Bharati, the then Mahant of Bharati Math under Khata No. 57 (Annexure -1). Pursuant to the notification dated 18.3.1974 issued under Section 3 (1) of the O.E.A. Act, the said land vested in the State. The then trustee, namely, Shri Toponidhi Sudarsan Bharati filed claim application under Sections 6 and 7 of the 0. E.A. Act, registered as O.E.A. Case No. No. 49 of 1975 (T). The O.E.A. Collector, after causing enquiry, by Order Dated 21.7.1975 settled the land in question in favour of the said Mahant and the then trustee of Bharati Math. The said statutory settlement has not been challenged by any person and became final. Consequent thereto, a rent schedule was issued by the O.E.A. Collector in favour of the trustee. When the land came under consolidation operation, the trustee filed an objection case for recording of the land in consonance with the order of settlement passed in O.E.A. Case No. 49 of 1975 (T).The said prayer was allowed by Order Dated 15.4.1977 by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. Final land records were prepared and published by the consolidation authorities in favour of the said trustee, which remained unchallenged. On an application filed by the trustee for grant of permission under Section 19 of the O.H.R.E. Act to transfer the said land, which was necessary and beneficial for the institution, the Commissioner of Endowments caused an enquiry and finding that such transfer is beneficial for the institution directed disposal of the property through public auction. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, pursuant to the said Order Dated 23.9.1986 of the Commissioner of Endowments, held the public auction on 14.11.1986 in which the Petitioner was the highest bidder. His bid was accepted and the land was transferred in favour of the Petitioner under four registered sale deeds dated 19.11.1986, 21.11.1986, 26.11.1986 and 3.12.1986 (Annexure -6 series). Appeals were preferred before the Secretary, Law Department against the order passed by the Commissioner, Endowments which were dismissed as found to be barred by limitation. But, however, the Appellate authority exercising suo motu revisional power set aside the order passed by the Commissioner. Challenging the said order passed by the Secretary, Law Department, the trustee and the present Petitioner filed O.J.C. No. 6538 of 1991 before this Court. This Court by Judgment dated 13.4.1995 (Annexure - 7) holding that the Secretary, Law Department could not have exercised suo motu revisional power after expiry of ninety days from the date of the order passed by the Commissioner, quashed the said order passed by the Secretary, Law Department. This Court further recorded that the Petitioner volunteered to pay further amount of Rs. 1.00 lakh over and above the consideration amount already paid by him. The Petitioner also filed mutation proceeding to mutate his name, which upon being allowed, the name of the Petitioner has been recorded in the Record of Rights (Annexure -8). The Petitioner also filed application for conversion of the status of the land, which has been allowed by the Revenue Officer in O.L.R. Case No. 24 of 1989 (Annexure -10).

(3.) THE Petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed under Section 37 (1) of the Act, inter alia, contending as follows: (I) Exercise of revisional power by the Commissioner under Section 37 (1) of the Act after passage of about nearly twenty years is arbitrary, improper & without jurisdiction. (II) The order of settlement passed under Sections 6 & 7 of the O.E.A. Act which is a statutory settlement, but has been illegally ignored by the 'Commissioner, Consolidation, more so, when the said order has not been challenged either by Lord Lingaraj Mohaprabhu or the deity Jameswar Dev or any other person. (III) After vesting of the estate, no application having been filed by Lord Lingaraj or the deity Jameswar Dev, their rights, if any stood extinguished by operation of law & they have no semblance of right, title or interest in respect of the land in question after vesting of the estate on 18.3.1974. (IV) Upon vesting of the estate all pre -existing rights of the intermediary came to an end & by virtue of the order of settlement passed by the O.E.A. Collector, the Mahant acquired a new & independent title derived on the basis of the statutory settlement under Sections 6 & 7 of the O.E.A. Act. (V) The Commissioner having of Endowments granted the to trustee permission on an application filed 19 of the under Section O.H.R.E. Act, & the trustee having executed the sale deeds in favour of the Petitioner, who became the highest bidder in the auction sale conducted by the endowment authorities & the validity of the orders passed by the endowment authorities having been confirmed by this Court in O.J.C. No. 6538 of 1991, it was not permissible Commissioner, for the Consolidation to unsettle the entire position by passing the impugned order after a long delay.