PRAFULLA KUMAR NAYAK Vs. KHETRAMOHAN NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges the order dated 12.4.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagatsinghpur in C.S. No.454 of 2014. By the said order, learned trial court disposed of the suit in terms of the compromise entered into between the plaintiff-opposite party no.1 and defendant no.2-oppoiste party no.1.

(2.) This case has a chequered history. The area in which the suit land falls, came under the purview of consolidation operation. Opposite party no.1 filed Consolidation Revision No.492 of 1993 before the Commissioner, Consolidation against Jhatu Nayak, father of the petitioners and husband of opposite party no.2. On 31.3.1995, the Commissioner, Consolidation, on the consent of the parties, remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer, Balikuda for effecting compromise. On 21.8.1996, father of the petitioners, opposite party no.1 and husband of opposite party no.2 filed a compromise petition along with the trace map for partition. By order dated 30.9.1996, the Consolidation Officer allotted 1/3rd share to each in accordance with the trace map. The said order has attained finality. Thereafter, opposite party no.1 filed Misc. Case No.51 of 2004 before the Tahasildar, Balikuda, opposite party no.4, for issuance of record-of-rights. Opposite party no.4 issued record-ofrights in the name of the father of the petitioners, opposite party no.1 and husband of opposite party no.2 respectively. While the matter stood thus, after lapse of fourteen years, opposite party no.1 instituted Civil Suit No.454 of 2014 on 28.3.2014 for permanent injunction impleading opposite party no.2 as defendant. A compromise petition was filed by the parties on 4.4.2014. The matter was placed before the Lok Adalat on 12.4.2014. The suit was decreed on compromise. Thereafter, opposite party no.1 filed OLR Case No.40 of 2016 before the Tahasildar, Balikuda for conversion from agricultural land to homestead. The same was allowed. The petitioners filed OLR Appeal No.8 of 2016 before the Sub-Collector, Jagatsinghpur, which is sub judice.

(3.) Heard Mr. R.K. Rath, learned Senior Advocate along with Ms. Sandipani Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Bikram Rath, learned counsel for opposite party no.1. None appears for opposite party no.2.