Shankar Nag @ Sankar Nag vs State Of Odisha And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 11364 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                   W.P.(C) No. 30100 of 2021

                 Shankar Nag @ Sankar Nag                     ....         Petitioner

                                              Mr.Arjuna Charan Behera, Advocate

                                              -versus-

                 State of Odisha and others                 .... Opp. Parties
                                                        Mr.Dillip Kumar Mishra,
                                                Additional Government Advocate
                                                 (For Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5)

                       CORAM:
                      JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

                                           ORDER

Order No.                                 06.11.2021
  1.        1.       This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the Opposite Parties to record the land in question in favaour of the Petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in a proceeding under the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960, one Kunja Pradhan was declared ceiling surplus land holder and his ceiling surplus land was settled in favour of the Petitioner. However, the Consolidation ROR was published in the name of the original landholder. In this regard, he relied upon a judgment dated 7th July, 2021 of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No.12015 of 2009, wherein this Court while deciding a similar issue, has directed the Collector, Subarnapur and Tahasildar, Rampur to record the land involved in that that case in the name of the Petitioner therein. It is his submission that this writ petition may be disposed of in the light of the said decision.

// 2 //

4. Mr. Mishra, learned AGA vehemently objects to the above and submits that the present writ petition is hopelessly barred by limitation, as the impugned order passed in the year 2009. Delay in filing the writ petition is not explained properly. Thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He further submits that the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is in respect of the writ petition which was filed in the year 2009 only. Hence, the ratio decided in the said case cannot be applicable to the case at hand due to delay and latches on the part of the Petitioner.

5. Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the ratio more particularly legal issue involved in W.P.(C) No.12015 of 2009 is similar to that involved in the present writ petition, the Petitioner should make an application before the Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambapur to consider his case in accordance with law.

6. Accordingly, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the contentions of learned counsel for the parties, disposes of the writ petition with an observation that in the event the Petitioner files a revision under Section 37(1) of the Odisha Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 before the Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur-Opposite Party No.2 within a period of four weeks hence along with certified copy of this order, the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law.

Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper application.

s.s.satapathy                                  (K.R. Mohapatra)
                                                     Judge