Orissa High Court
Braja Sundar Pattnaik & vs Joint Commissioner on 26 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) Nos.15390/2009, 15391/2009, 15392/2009,
15393/2009, 15394/2009 & 15395/2009
(Applications u/ss.226 & 227 of the Constitution of India)
Braja Sundar Pattnaik & .... Petitioners
Anr.
M/s.P.K. Rath, Mr.A.K. Rout,
Mr. A.Behera, Mr. S.K.Behera,
Mr. P. Nayak, Mr.K. Kashyap,
Mr. S.K. Pattnaik and Mr. B.K. Dash
(Advocates for petitioners)
-versus-
Joint Commissioner, .... Opposite Parties
Settlement and
Consolidation, Bhubaneswar
& others.
Mr. U.K. Sahoo,
Addl. Standing Counsel for
O.Ps.1 to 3
Mr.Saswati Mohapatra and
Mr. Sumit Mohanty,
Advocates for O.P.4(a)
in WPC Nos.15390-15392/
2009
None appears for
OPs.4(a) to 7 in WPC
No.15393-15395/ 2009
CORAM:
JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
JUDGMENT
Date of Hearing and Judgment:26.10.2021
1. Involving a batch of writ petitions being disposed of by a
common judgment, there has been filing of multiple writ petitions
involving the same set of Annexures-3, 4 and 5 and all the writ
// 2 //
petitions have also been filed by common set of petitioners
remaining as objectors in the original proceeding, the Appellants in
the Appeals involved and lastly as Revision petitioners in the first
set of revision involved herein.
2. There is no dispute that all the writ petitions involve
common facts and common dispute required to be adjudicated. On
consent of all the parties appearing all these writ petitions are heard
together and disposed of by a common judgment.
3. There is challenge to the impugned judgment more
particularly Annexures-3 and 4 on the premises that there has been
mechanical disposal of proceedings vide Annxures-3 and 4 when
Annexure-5 is challenge on the premises that while not taking into
account the case of petitioners in appropriate spirit, it is alleged there
is illegal entertainment of revision of private opposite parties in spite
of their being not the aggrieved parties to the orders at Annexures-3
and 4.
4. Heard submissions learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.
U.K. Sahoo, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
In spite of appearance of a set of counsel for opposite party nos.4 to
6, nobody is appearing to make their submission.
// 3 //
5. The question raised on substitution of opposite party no.6,
this Court finds for the substantial representation by the private
opposite parties all through involving all the three proceedings
involved herein, this Court finds substitution is not a requirement
here. Now considering the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioners and the counter submission of Mr.Sahoo, this Court finds
the back ground involving the case is on an objection case being
filed by the original purchaser being registered as Original Case
No.59/1350 of 1982 under Section 9(3) of the Orissa Consolidation
of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972.
Objection Case having been dismissed on contest, vide Annexure-3,
an appeal is preferred by the objector vide Appeal Case No.97/83,
98/83 and 99/83 involving common opposite parties therein. These
appeals appear to have been dismissed, vide Annexure-4 having no
merit thereby confirming the order of the lower court in the
objection case, resulting two sets of revision, one by the petitioners,
whereas the other by the private opposite parties to the objection as
well as the appeals involved herein.
6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and as this
Court finds three courts have landed in one common finding and
there exists concurrent finding of fact, this Court finds no scope for
// 4 //
interfering in such orders in exercise of power under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India. Besides for the observation of the
Revisional Authority has also got the scope to establish their right
through Civil Court. As a consequence, this Court dismisses the writ
applications so far it relates to Consolidation Revision Case
Nos.212/93, 453/93, 454/93, 217/93, 219/93 and 221/93.
7. However entertaining the objection of the petitioners so far it
relates to Revision Case Nos.217/93, 219/93 and 221/93 vide
Annexure-5, this Court finds there is substance in the submission of
learned counsel for the petitioners in their objection to entertain the
revision applications by the opposite parties in objection cases and
the appeals even after dismissal of the objection case and appeals at
the instance of the present petitioners.
8. Mr.Sahoo, learned counsel for the State does not have any
dispute with regard to the legal prospective raised herein above. This
Court here also takes note of the provision of Section 36 of the
Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation
of Land Act, 1972, which reads as under:
"36. Revision. - (1) The Consolidation Commissioner may,
on an application by any person aggrieved by any decision
of the Director of Consolidation within ninety days from
the date of the decision, revise such decision and for the
said purpose, he may call for and examine the records :
// 5 //
Provided that no such order shall be passed without
giving the parties concerned a reasonable opportunity of
being heard.
(2) All orders passed under this section shall be final
and shall not be void in question in any Court of law."
9. Reading through the provision, looking to the background
and the manner of dismissal of objection case under Annexure-3,
and the appeals under Annexure-4, this Court finds there is no
possibility of entertaining the revision at the instance of opposite
parties in objection case and the respondents in the appeals, in the
circumstance, the order at Annexure-5 so far it relates to revision
case Nos.217/93, 219/93 and 221/93 are interfered with and set aside
as not maintainable. It is however observed, this Court interferes in
the orders of revisional authority in so far as above revision shall not
be precluded the private opposite parties to have their legal recourses
otherwise.
10. With the above direction, the writ petitions stand disposed of
but in the circumstance there is no order as to cost.
............................................
BISWANATH RATH, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Dated the 26th day of October, 2021/uks
