LAXMAN SAHU Vs. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present writ applicalion the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated June 23. 1998 passed by. the Director of Consolidation, Orissa. Cuttack in Revision .Case No. 4148/97 Under Section 37(2) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Consolidation Act).

(2.) THE disputed land originally belonged to one Benga Bewa wife of one Lokanath Behera. In 1961 she transferred .the said land to one Paramananda Sahu. By a registered deed of sale dated October 16. 1973 Parainananda again re -transferred the disputed land to Benga Bewa. During consolidation operation Benga Bewa filed an application before the Assistant Consolidation Officer Under Section 15 of the Consolidation Act to record her name in respect of the disputed land. The Assistant Consolidation Officer rejected the said prayer on the ground that Paramananda did not file any affidavit stating that he did not have any ceiling surplus land at the time of sale in favour of Benga Bewa and directed to record the disputed land in favour of Paramananda. Prahalad, the son of Paramananda sold the entire disputed land to the present petitioners by a registered sale deed dated January 23, 1989. Benga left two sons. Sankar and Siba. The disputed land was partitioned between Sankar and Siba equally.

(3.) SECTION 37 of the Consolidation Act has conferred power and authority on the Consolidation Commissioner and the Director of Consolidation to call for and examine the records of any case decided or proceedings taken up by any subordinate authority and to rectify if the subordinate authority has committed any substantial illegality or infirmity. This power is not controlled by any other provisions in the Act. The Statute has not put any limitation on this power so that this power can be exercised at any stage to prevent perpetration of any illegality and to promote, the interest of justice. It is obvious that the power must be exercised to further the interest of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of law. A Division Bench of this Court in Maguni Pradhan v. Commissioner of Consolidation, Orissa and Ors. reported in 1992 (I) OLR 246 has already made the position clear.