ISWAR CHANDRA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners challenge the order of the Commissioner of Consolidation, Orissa, Bhubaneswar rejecting their Revision application.

(2.) THE undisputed factual position is that sabik plot No. 1415 corresponding to L.R. plot No. 869 with. an area of A. 0.02 decs. and sabik plot No. 1416 corresponding to L.R. plot No. 870 with an area of A. 0.13 decs. belong to opp. parties 5 to 7 Sabik plot No. 1417 corresponding to L.R. plot No. 871 with an area of A.0.17 decs. belonging to the Petitioners and all these plots are adjacent. Opp. parties 5 to 7 filed objection during the Consolidation operation to the effect that their area has become less and reduced, inter alia on the ground that they have got delivery of possession of the disputed property in khata No. 120, plot No. 1415 area A.O.H decs. from western side out of A.0.02 decs. and khata No. 111, plot No. 1416 with an area Ac. 0.04 decs. from the western side out of A. 0.13 decs. by a decree of delivery of possession in respect of Ac. 0.051/2 decs. from their own two plots.

(3.) THE opp. party No. 1 had come up earlier in O.J.C. No. 2363 of 1983 and this Court by order dated 20 -4 -1990 quashed the order of the Commissioner and directed that Case No. 1019 of 1981 be re -heard by the Commissioner after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and re -dispose of thereafter in accordance with law. The present writ application is against the order of the Commissioner after remand. The learned Commissioner, as it appears from the impugned order having found that the Deputy Director, Consolidation had compared the map of 1927 settlement, the not final map and the current Consolidation map and having come to the conclusion that the sabik plot No. 1417 though had an area of A. 0.17 decs. as per the record actually out of an area of Ac. 11.360 decs. as per the sabik map and came to the conclusion that the error in the actual area and the recorded area crept in during the previous settlement and concluded that the Respondent cannot claim title and possession on the basis of wrong entry committed by the settlement authorities. The Commissioner has observed that to make good the error the Deputy Director having allowed the appeal by correcting plot No. 871 of the Respondents with that of Plaintiffs' plot Nos. 869 and 870. no illegality has been committed.