MANGALA CHARAN SAMAL Vs. SARAT CHARAN SASMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE common orders passed by the Consolidation Officer, Gop Kakatpur in RRC No. 423/95, 470/96 vide Annexure -4, which were confirmed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Puri in Appeal Case No. 52 of 1998 and 53 of 1998 (Annexure -5) and the order passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation in Revision Petition No. 101 of 1999 confirming the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and Deputy Director vide Annexure -6 is assailed in this writ application.

(2.) THE lands in dispute appertain to Sabik Plot No. 139 measuring an area Ac.2.01 dec, plot No. 146 measuring Ac.0.49 dec, plot No. 147 measuring Ac.0.08 dec. in total Ac.2.58 dec. under Sabik Khata No. 1 of mouza Anantapur. The said lands stood recorded jointly in the name of one Jogi Samal, son of Basu having 1/3rd share, Dhruba Samal, son of Anadi Samal having 1/6th share, Chemei Samal son of Bhubaneswar Sasmal having 1/3rd share and Dinabandhu Samal son of Raghab Sasmal having 1/6th share. In the year 1934, to be more precise on 20.7.1934 Dhruba son of Anadi, who had 1/6th interest over the lands sold his share to Dinabandhu Sasmal, son of Raghab Sasmal by a registered sale deed. By virtue of the said sale, Dinabandhu became 1/3rd share holder over the lands. By sale deed dated 9.7.1964 Gadei @ Gadadhara, son of Dinabandhu purchased the share of Sadananda, Satyananda and Hari, sons of Dinabandhu as well as Kailash son of Kasi. By virtue of the said purchase through registered sale deed, Gadei became the exclusive owner in respect of 1/3rd share in the property. Similarly on 17.3.1970 Dhadi and Ganesh sons of Chemei sold their 1/3rd share to Mangala Sasmal (present Petitioner) and Gopal Sasmal respectively by a registered sale deed.

(3.) AFTER publication of the R.O.R., Sarat, Opposite Party No. l and others filed Revision Case No. 470 of 1996 before the Commissioner claiming that they have interest in the property and the Petitioner Mangala Charan Sasmal had purchased excess lands from the co -sharer and recording of the entire lands in his favour was not justified. According to the Opposite Party No. 1, Kangali and Gopal, sons of Gadei though had only Ac.0.11 dec, they have sold Ac.0.18 dec. thus, Ac.0.08 dec. of land had been recorded in excess in the name of the Petitioner, Mangala. Another revision was also filed by Arjun Sasmal, which was registered as Revision Case No. 423 of 1995 before the Commissioner, taking the stand that though he is a successor of Jogi through Biswanath, his name has not been recorded in the R.O.R. in respect of Hal Khata No. 58. The Commissioner heard both the revisions filed under Section 37 of the Act and came to the conclusion that the Consolidation Officer has not properly dealt with the matter and there are certain errors apparent on the face of the records leading to discrepancy with regard to the title of the parties. Consequently, the order of the Consolidation Officer was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Consolidation Officer for de novo adjudication.