Orissa High Court
Bansidhar Nishank And Another vs The Commissioner on 13 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.13 of 2017
Bansidhar Nishank and another .... Appellants
M/s. M. Mohanty, Advocate and associates
-versus-
The Commissioner, Consolidation, .... Respondents
Bhubaneswar and others
Mr. Ishwar Mohanty, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
13.10.2022
Order No.
09. 1. The present appeal is directed against an order dated 9th
December 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the
Appellants' OJC No.6231 of 1998. In the said writ petition, the
Appellants had assailed an order passed by the revisional authority
under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation Holdings and
Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (OCH & PFL Act).
2. Initially, the Appellant had filed objections under Section 9 (3) of
the OCH & PFL Act and an order in their favour had been passed
under Section 10 of the said Act by the Consolidation Officer.
Three years later, an order was passed in favour of private
Respondent who subsequently died.
3. The contention of the Appellants that an order passed under
Section 10 of the OCH & PFL Act would not have been reversed
under Section 15 (1) thereof does not appear to be correct. On
perusal of the said order, it appears that it was not passed by way of
reversing the order passed three years earlier under Section 10 of
the OCH & PFL Act.
4. The learned Single Judge has in the impugned judgment
observed as under:
"Considering the rival contentions of the parties and
looking to the admitted facts and circumstances
involved, this Court finds the Revisional authority
allowed the revision on the premises that the
documents relied upon by the present petitioner cannot
be accepted for the reasons apparent on the face of it
and further for the corrections being undertaken
without having attestation or entries to that effect,
documents appeared to be a manufactured one and
further the Revisional authority has also based his
revision that petitioner had the sole case on some oral
submissions, which cannot be accepted. Mr. Mohanty,
though made his submission that the finding of the
Revisional authority stay contrary to materials
available on record but he is unable to satisfy the same
by referring to any such document. In absence of any
material contrary to the finding of the Revisional
Authority, this Court finds no scope to interfere in the
impugned order."
5. There being concurrent findings of both the revisional authority
and the learned Single Judge, the Court is not inclined to interfere.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
M. Panda/S.K. Guin
