Orissa High Court
Sri Jameswar Deb vs Pratap Pattnaik (Dead) And on 6 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WA. No. 184 of 2009
Sri Jameswar Deb, Bije Bhubaneswar .... Appellant
Marfatdar Lord Lingaraj Mohaprabhu
Trust Board
Mr. A. Mohanta, Advocate
-versus-
Pratap Pattnaik (Dead) and .... Respondents
Represented by his Legal
Representatives and others
Mr. Bansidhar Baug, Advocate
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE R. K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order No. 06.04.2022
06. 1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order of the learned
Single Judge, dated 24th July, 2009 in OJC No.14702 of 1999
whereby writ petition filed by the Opposite Parties challenging an
order dated 19th July 1997 of the Commissioner, Consolidation and
Settlement, Orissa in Consolidation Revision Case No.90 of 1995
was quashed.
2. At the outset, it must be noted that the principal ground, on
which the aforementioned writ petition was allowed was that there
was an inordinate delay in the present Petitioner preferring the
aforementioned revision petition under Section 37(1) of the
Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of
Land Act 1972 ('Act'). It was specifically noted that the
Commissioner had interfered with an order passed under the said
Act by the Assistant Consolidation Officer after a passage of nearly
twenty years.
3. It requires to be noted that in the present appeal which was filed
way back on 30th October, 2009, there has been no interim order till
date.
4. The background facts are that Opposite Party No.1 purchased a
piece of land in Mouza Mohabhoi Sasan in an auction sale,
conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments pursuant
to the permission accorded by the Commissioner of Endowments in
proceedings under Section 19 of the Orissa Hindu Religious
Endowments Act (OHRE Act). The endowment in question is a
public endowment of Bharati Math.
5. Originally the land was recorded in favour of Toponidhi
Sudarsan Bharati, the then Mahant of Bharati Math. Pursuant to the
notification dated 18th March 1974, issued under Section 3(1) of the
Orissa Estate Abolition Act (OEA Act), the land vested in the State.
Sri Toponidhi Bharati filed a claim application under Sections 6
and 7 of the OEA Act which was registered as OEA Case No.49 of
1975 (T).
6. By an order dated 21st July 1975, the OEA Collector, after
holding an enquiry, settled the land in question in favour of the said
Mahant. It is stated that the said settlement was not challenged and
became final. Consequent upon such settlement, a rent schedule
was issued by the OEA Collector in favour of the trustee.
7. When the land came within the consolidation operation, the
trustee filed an objection for recording the land in consonance with
the order of settlement in OEA Case No.49 of 1975(T). This
application was allowed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer by
an order dated 15th April 1977. This too has been challenged by the
present Petitioner in OEARP No.1 of 2009.
8. The learned Single Judge found that there was no valid
explanation for the inordinate delay in preferring the revision
petition under Section 37(1) of the Act. Learned Single Judge
referred to the decisions in Ghasiram Rana v. State of Orissa 81
(1996) C.L.T. 279 and Sri Abhaya Charan Mohanty v. State of
Orissa 2003 (Supp) OLR 882. Since the order of the settlement
passed by the OEA Collector in favour of the vendor of Opposite
Party No.1 was never challenged by the present Appellant, it was
not open to the revisional authority to entertain the revision.
9. It was further noted that the sale in favour of Opposite Party No.1
had been challenged in OJC No.6538 of 1991. The order seeking to
exercise suo motu power in those proceedings was quashed by this
Court noting that Opposite Party No.1 volunteered to pay a further
amount of Rs.1 Lakh over and above the consideration money
already paid.
10. Learned counsel for the Appellant with a view to explaining the
inordinate delay in exercising the revisional power under Section
37(1) of the Act place reliance on the Judgment in Siba Muduli vs.
Director, Consolidation 2021 SCC OnLine Ori 1632. According to
him, since the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was
inherently without jurisdiction, the Commissioner was justified in
exercising the revisional power in Consolidation Case No. 90 of
1995 under Section 37(1) of the Act.
11. It must be noted here that in the background of the above facts
where there have been several rounds of litigation including OJC
Case No.6538 of 1991 and the OEARP No.1 of 2009, there was no
valid justification for the present Appellant to have waited for
twenty years to question the order of the Assistant Commissioner
under Section 37(1) of the Act. The Court is not satisfied that there
is justification for the inordinate delay. What applies here is
principle of laches and the learned Single Judge has correctly
followed the earlier orders in Ghasiram Rana (Supra) and Sri
Abhaya Charan Mohanty (Supra) in setting aside the order passed
by the Commissioner entertaining the revision petition under
Section 37(1) of the Act although it was delayed by more than
twenty years.
12. No grounds have been made out for interference. The appeal is
accordingly dismissed.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(R. K. Pattanaik)
Judge
S. Behera
