Cuttack Municipal Corporation vs Joint Commissioner
2023 Latest Caselaw 4037 Ori

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                    W.A. Nos. 467 and 468 of 2010

 W.A. No.467 of 2010
 Cuttack Municipal Corporation,                   ....           Appellant
 Cuttack
                             -versus-
 Joint Commissioner, Consolidation and            ....         Respondents
 Settlement, Cuttack and Others
                              AND
 W.A. No.468 of 2010
 Cuttack Municipal Corporation,                   ....           Appellant
 Cuttack
                             -versus-
 Joint Commissioner, Consolidation and            ....         Respondents
 Settlement, Cuttack and Others

Advocates appeared in these cases:

 For Appellants(s)              :        Mr. S.P. Mishra, Senior Advocate

 For Respondent(s)              :          Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, AGA
                                                 Mr. P.K. Rath, Advocate
                                            Mr. P.K. Satapathy, Advocate
                                           Mr. D.R. Mohapatra, Advocate

 CORAM:
 THE CHIEF JUSTICE
 JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

                                    JUDGMENT

21.04.2023 Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ

1. Both these appeals by the Cuttack Municipal Corporation (CMC) are directed against a common judgment dated 28th June 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) No.12031 and 12032 of 2006 filed by the CMC. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the orders dated 24th February 2004 passed by

W.A. Nos. 467 and 468 of 2010

the Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Odisha, Cuttack in R.P. Case No.1612 and 1613 of 2003.

Background facts

2. The case of the CMC is that in a settlement that took place in 1931, land pertaining to Khata No.917 consisting of 41 plots of village-Bahar Bisinibar measuring an area of Ac 25.80 decimals was recorded in the name of Cuttack Municipality. Out of the said extent, suit Plot No.1135/3776 measuring an area of Ac 0.606 decimals corresponding to Sabik Khata No.917 was recorded as Puratan Patita.

3. The case of the two purchasers i.e. Mr. Govinda Prasad Pattnaik (Respondent No. 2 in W.A. 467 of 2010) and Smt. Baisali Mohanty (Respondent No. 2 in W.A. 468 of 2010) is that their vendor Naba Kumar Acharya (Respondent No.3 in both the writ appeals), inherited the suit plot from his father Sri Gajendra Kumar Acharya in whose favour land in Tauzi No. 2499 was allotted following a judgment and decree passed by the Sub-Judge, Cuttack in a partition suit Case No. 94 of 1924 which was affirmed by the Privy Council in Padmalav Achariya v. Fakira Debya AIR 1931 PC 84. It is claimed that the names of the intermediary Gajendra Acharya was entered in the D Register prepared under Section 4 Part 2 of the Land Registration Act 1876 and that the said D Register was maintained by the Collector, Cuttack. It is further claimed by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in both appeals that facilities were granted to the ex-intermediary for settlement of Khas land and personal Jagir lands in terms of a Notification and instructions issued to the Land Reforms Commissioner, Orissa by a

W.A. Nos. 467 and 468 of 2010

G.O. dated 2nd March 1964 of the Revenue and Excise Department for suo motu settlement.

4. It is further claimed by Respondents 2 and 3 that on the above basis a Vesting Case No. 3699 of 1976 was initiated before the Tahasildar, Cuttack in which the Revenue Inspector is stated to have prepared a report on the basis of which on 7th January 1978, the OEA Collector - cum- Additional Tahasildar is supposed to have settled the suit plot in favour of Naba Kumar Acharya (Respondent No.3 in the appeals) under Sections 6 and 7 of the Odisha Estate Abolition Act (OEA Act). It is thus claimed by Respondents 2 and 3 in both appeals that Respondent No.3 acquired the right, title and interest in respect of the suit plot under Khata No. 917, Plot No. 1135/3776 and that his possession was confirmed by the Tahasildar, Cuttack in OEA Case No. 3699 of 1976.

5. In 1981, on the above basis, Naba Kumar Acharya (Respondent No.3 in both the writ appeals) filed Objection Case No.3654 of 1981 praying that Sabik Plot No.1135/3776 should be recorded in his name.

6. The case of the CMC is that the above order dated 7th January, 1978 had been passed by the Additional Tahasildar, Sadar Cuttack behind the back of the CMC. Further, it is contended by CMC that Sabik Khata No. 917 is not under Tauzi No. 2499 and as such the suit plot never vested in the Government under the OEA Act to begin with. In other words, since the suit plot was not in the State and/or intermediary interest, it did not vest in the Government under the OEA Act. The case of the CMC is that Tauzi No. 2499 consists of Khata No. 693 (Anabadi

W.A. Nos. 467 and 468 of 2010

comprising 7 plots of a total area of Ac. 91.974 dec), Khata No. 694 (Sarbasadharan, comprising 1 plot of a total area of Ac. 0.140 dec) and Khata No. 695 (Rakhit, comprising 2 plots of a total area of Ac. 9.021 dec. It is contended by CMC that Tauzi 2499 vested with the Government vide 2291/EA dated 14th September, 1953 but that this did not include Khata No. 917 belonging to Cuttack Municipality. Therefore, according to the CMC, the settlement of Plot 1135/3776 in favour of Respondent No.3 is a nullity.

7. Nevertheless, the Assistant Settlement Officer (ASO) partly allowed the prayer of Respondent No.3 in respect of Hal Plot No.283, Hal Plot No.286 and Hal Plot No.296 measuring Ac.0.606 decimals by order dated 28th June 1983. The corresponding suit Hal Plot Nos.283, 286 and 296 were thus recorded in favour of Respondent No.3 in a separate Stitiban Khata. Ac 0.603 decimal covering Hal Plot Nos.282, 286/363 and 283/367 remained in the Municipal Hal Khata. Of these, Plot No.286/363 was the CMC Employees quarters.

8. The order of the ASO was challenged by the CMC by filing Appeal Case No.1673 of 1983 before the Additional Settlement Officer, Cuttack. After hearing the parties, the Additional Settlement Officer allowed the appeal by an order dated 14th October 1985, thereby setting aside the order of the ASO with the finding that the Tahasildar had no jurisdiction to settle Municipal land under the OEA Act in favour of Opposite Party No.3. It was further held that the name of Respondent No.3 was only recorded in the remarks column of the Hal Municipal

W.A. Nos. 467 and 468 of 2010

ROR with illegal note of possession and, therefore, the OEA settlement itself was illegal, invalid and void in the eye of law.

9. After the order passed by the Additional Settlement Officer in Appeal Case No.1673/1983, Respondent No.3 is stated to have transferred a piece of land from Hal Plot No.282, 283(P) and 286 in favour of Govinda Pattnaik (Respondent No.2 in WA 467 of 2010). Respondent No.3 also transferred Plot measuring Ac 0.40 decimal from Hal Plot No.283 (P) in favour of Smt. Baisali Mohanty (Respondent No.2 in WA 468 of 2010) by registered sale deeds (RSDs) executed in the month of April, 1987.

10. However, Respondent No.3 did not challenge the order dated 14th October 1985 passed by the Additional Settlement Officer in Appeal Case No.1673 of 1983. Subsequently, the Hal ROR was published on 13th October 1987 in favour of CMC.

11. In 1995, eight years after publication of the 1987 ROR, Govind Pattanaik (Respondent No.2 in W.A. No.467 of 2010) and Smt. Baisali Mohanty (Respondent No.2 in W.A. No.468 of 2010) filed before the Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack Mutation Case Nos.1749, 1750 and 1751 of 1995 to mutate their names in respect of the said land. Notices were issued to the CMC by the Tahasildar. Without referring to the RSDs, the Tahasildar allowed mutation in respect of Ac.0.438 decimals in favour of the applicants and their vendor in separate Khata.

12. According to the CMC, the Tahasildar, without verifying the documents and hearing the matter in a proper perspective immediately

W.A. Nos. 467 and 468 of 2010

granted Patta by creating a separate Stitiban Khata in favour of the purchaser being Khata No.49/03, 49/04 and 49/05. The above order of the Tahasildar was challenged by the CMC before the Sub-Collector, Cuttack in Appeal Nos.87, 88 and 89 of 1996. The Sub-Collector dismissed the appeal of the CMC, thus upholding the order dated 7th January 1978 passed by the Tahasildar, Sadar in OEA Case No.3699 of 1976.

13. By an order dated 22nd August 2009, the Member Board of Revenue after analyzing the law and subject was pleased to set aside both the orders of the Tahasildar as well as the Sub-Collector.

14. The CMC filed an application before the Collector, Cuttack for taking up an inquiry with regard to the alleged OEA Case No.3699/1976. The Collector inquired about the matter and ultimately came to conclusion vide order dated 26th September, 2001, that there is a prima facie fraud committed in the said OEA Record and the said case record is missing.

15. After the order passed by the Tahasildar as well as Sub-Collector, the purchasers Govinda Pattnaik and Smt. Baisali Mohanty got the land mutated in their favour. Patta was also issued in their favour since 1996. In 2001, the said two purchasers preferred R.P. Case Nos.2161/2001 and 2162/2001 before the learned Commissioner of Land Records & Settlement seeking correction of the Hal ROR of the 1987 settlement in respect of Municipal Khata No.118 pertaining to Hal Plot No.282, 283 & 286 in their favour in a separate Khata on the ground that the said

W.A. Nos. 467 and 468 of 2010

plot originally belonged to Sri Gajendra Kumar Acharya who was an Ex-intermediary and in Khas possession of the suit plot and that it stood settled in favour of his son Naba Kumar Acharya by the order dated 7th January 1978 passed by the Additional Tahasildar, Cuttack in OEA Case No.3699/1976.

16. R.P. Case Nos.2161/2001 and 2162/2001 were dismissed on 20th December, 2002. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 filed Misc. Case No.794 of 2002, subsequently renumbered as Misc. Case No.15 of 2003, to implead Naba Kumar Acharya as a party in the aforesaid disposed of R.P. Cases. The notice issued thereon by the Joint Commissioner to Naba Kumar Acharya was not served on him. The process server submitted a report to the effect that the notice was served on one Lingaraj Acharya, son of Naba Kumar Acharya. Admittedly, no notice relating to the renumbered R.P. Case was served on the Opposite Parties in the said R.P. The Commissioner, nevertheless, by order dated 17th June 2003 restored R.P. Case Nos.2161/2001 and 2162/2001. Subsequently he passed an ex-parte order on 24th June 2003 allowing the two R.Ps.

17. CMC then filed Misc. Case No.78 of 2003 before the Joint Commissioner to recall the ex parte orders dated 17th and 24th June 2003. This was allowed by the Joint Commissioner and the above orders were recalled. However, subsequently, by an order dated 24th February 2004, R.P. No.1612 and 1613 of 2003 were again allowed by the Joint Commissioner. These orders were challenged in this Court by CMC in W.P.(C) Nos.12031 and 12032 of 2006.

W.A. Nos. 467 and 468 of 2010

18. In the impugned order dismissing the said petitions, the learned Single Judge has held that even if it were to be assumed that the lands were recorded in favour of the Cuttack Municipality in 1931 during the settlement operation, no documents had been produced to establish how CMC had acquired title over the lands. The learned Single Judge went on to observe as under:

"In view of the clear position that settlement records neither create nor extinguish title and as the title of the ex-intermediary was virtually settled by the Civil Court and by the Privy Council, it can be safely concluded that the Cuttack Municipal Corporation cannot assail the same. Admittedly, out of the self-same area of Ac.0.606 decimals which was settled in favour of Naba Kumar Acharya, the ex-intermediary under the OEA Act had executed more than one sale deed in favour of the outsiders. No steps appear to have been taken by the Cuttack Municipal Corporation to claim right over the said property. At the other hand, the Cuttack Municipal Corporation had accepted their right, title and interest. Thus, it is not open to the Cuttack Municipal Corporation to assail the title of Opposite Party No.2 alone. Further, the Municipality is estopped from doing so in view of its past conduct."

19. As regards the plea of CMC that fraud had been practiced by Opposite Party No.3, the learned Single Judge held that the Settlement authorities have no jurisdictional authority to decide disputed questions of title. Therefore, while not interfering with the impugned orders of the Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation it was clarified that it would be subject to any decision as regards title to the land. It was clarified that if the title was decided in favour of the CMC by a competent Court, the RoR shall accordingly be corrected.

W.A. Nos. 467 and 468 of 2010

Present appeals

20. Notice was issued by this Court in the present writ appeals by the CMC on 1st May, 2019. At one stage during hearing of the writ appeals a question arose regarding availability of the original records of OEA Case No.3699 of 1976. In its order dated 19th September, 2022 this Court recorded as under:

"1. The contention of Mr. Misra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant Cuttack Municipal Corporation (CMC) is that there is no record of OEA Case No.3699 of 1976 and that without ascertaining this fact the subsequent sale deeds have been registered in respect of Khata No.917 in Touza No.2499 which according to him stood in the name of CMC since 1931.

2. Mr. Rath and other counsel appearing for the Respondents on the other hand contest the above submissions and point out that the CMC has, in fact, filed revision before the Board of Revenue arising from the same OEA case which is still pending before the Board of Revenue.

3. In order to resolve the issue whether the record of OEA Case No.3699 of 1976 is in fact available, a direction is issued to the State Government to produce the said record, if available, before the Court on the next date.

4. List on 8th December, 2022 along with W.A. No.468 of 2010."

21. Thereafter, on 8th December, 2022 learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) sought time to trace out the record of

W.A. Nos. 467 and 468 of 2010

OEA Case No.3699 of 1976 and "if available, to produce it before the Court".

22. These writ appeals were heard on 29th March, 2023 when the Court was informed by the AGA, on the basis of written instructions, that despite a thorough search for the record of the aforementioned OEA Case in the office of the Tahasildar, Sadar Cuttack, the file was not traceable. The Court continued with the final hearing of the writ petitions.

Submissions of counsel

23. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. S.P.Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants-CMC, Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, learned AGA for the State-Respondents and Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 i.e. the Buyer and Mr. P.K. Satapathy and Mr. D.R. Mohapatra learned counsel also appearing for the Buyers.

24. Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the CMC contended that CMC had throughout pointed out the fraud played by Respondent No.3 in getting the suit land recorded in his favour in 1978 by invoking the OEA Act. What was overlooked was that Respondent No.3 was neither an ex-landlord nor an intermediary in respect of Sabik Khata No.917 and therefore, settlement of such land in his favour in OEA Case No.3699/1976 was beyond the scope of the OEA Act and beyond the jurisdiction of the Addl. Tahasildar, Cuttack.

W.A. Nos. 467 and 468 of 2010

25. It is further pointed out by Mr. Mishra that when Touzi No.2499 of Mouza Bahar Bisinabar was recorded in favour of Gajender Kumar Acharya, the 1st part Khewat No. 5 which vested to the Government consisted of 3 Sabik Khata i.e. Khata No. 693, 694,

695. That Touzi did not consist of Sabik Municipal Khata No.917. So, the Sabik Municipal Plot No.1135/3776 under Khata No.917 was never vested in the Government. Hence, the Tahasildar had no jurisdiction to correct the ROR which was recorded in favour of the Appellant in the years 1931 and 1987.

26. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel, additionally relied on Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act and submitted that no title existed in favour of Opposite Party No.3 at any point of time in respect of the land in the aforementioned Sabik Municipal Khata No.917. In other words, Respondent No.3 was neither in Ex- landlord nor an Intermediary. Consequently, the settlement of such land in his favour in OEA Case No.3699/1976 was clearly impermissible in law. What was also overlooked is that the Member, Board of Revenue by order dated 22nd August, 2009 allowed OSS Nos.733-735/2003 filed by the CMC. The order passed by the Tahasildar, Sadar Cuttack was set aside. It is submitted that despite this fact being brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, the writ petitions were disposed of without considering the said documents.

27. Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2, sought to place reliance on the decision in Jt. Collector Ranga Reddy Dist v.

W.A. Nos. 467 and 468 of 2010

D. Narsingh Rao AIR 2015 SC 1021 and submitted that there was an inordinate delay in exercising the revisional jurisdiction vis-à-vis entries made in the ROR in 1978 and, therefore, such objection should not have been entertained at all in the first place. It is submitted that the order dated 7th January, 1978 in OEA Case No.3699/1976 was based on the amin inquiry report dated 10th June, 1977. Further, salami rent has also been paid in respect of the property in question. He also pointed out that CMC's OEA Appeal No.4 of 2006 to challenge the order dated 7th January, 1978 passed by the Tahasildar in OEA Case No.3699/1976 was dismissed on 21st July, 2007 on the ground of limitation.

28. It must be added here that the order passed in Mutation Revision Case in O.S.S. No.733 of 2003, O.S.S. No.734 of 2003 and O.S.S. No.735 of 2003 was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.20358 of 2009, W.P.(C) No.20359 of 2009 and W.P.(C) No.20361 of 2009. The said three writ petitions were disposed of with a direction that the right of the parties will be governed by the decision of this Court in the said pending writ appeals as well as the order to be passed in OEA Revision Case No.29 of 2009 pending before the Board of Revenue Orissa, Cuttack.

29. Mr. Rath further points out that both the purchasers i.e. Respondent No.2 in each of the writ appeals had purchased the land from Respondent No.3 by obtaining permission from the Administrative Officer, Urban Land Ceiling Section, Collectorate

W.A. Nos. 467 and 468 of 2010

Cuttack on 19th March, 1971. The CDA had approved the building plans on 19th January, 1990. On 17th June, 1995 the Director, Municipal Administration restrained the CMC from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit land.

30. It is pointed out that the order passed by the ASO on 28th June, 1983 upholding CMC's objection was reversed by the Additional Settlement Officer by order dated 14th October, 1985. It is accordingly submitted that the impugned orders do not require for any interference. Relying on the decision in Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner (2007) 6 SCC 186 it is submitted that the entries in the revenue record or zamabandi does not confer title on a person whose name appears in Record of Rights. No ownership, is conferred on the basis of such entry. So far as the title of the property is concerned it can only be decided by the competent Civil Court.

31. In support of the proposition that an order passed by the OEA authority has to be respected and followed by the Settlement Authority for preparation of ROR, reliance is placed on the decisions in State of Odisha v. Pravabati Das 2014 (II) OLR 649; Chunti Patra v. State of Odisha 81 (1996) CLT 292; Rama Devi (dead) v. Ch. Dhananjaya Mohapatra 2014(I) OLR 871; Narayan Chandra Pradhan v. The Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar 2013 (II) OLR 490; Prafulla Chandra Muduli v. State of Odisha (2005) Supp. OLR 950; Trilochan Singh v. Commissioner of Land Records 1995 (I) OLR 537 and Manamohan Rout v. State of

W.A. Nos. 467 and 468 of 2010

Odisha 1992 (II) OLR 529. Relying on the decision in M. Minakshi v. Metadin Agarwal (2006) 7 SCC 470, it is submitted that a void order is not non-est unless it is set aside by a competent Court of law.

Analysis and reasons

32. The above submissions have been considered. What is unable to be denied from the entire narration of facts is that the land always stood recorded in the name of CMC from 1931 onwards. Sabik Plot No.1135/3776 under Khata No.917 never vested in the Government. The land in question on the other hand was recorded twice in the ROR in favour of CMC, once in 1931 and then in 1987.There is, therefore, merit in the contention that in respect of such land, to allow the mutation in the ROR as was done by the Tahasildar on 17th June, 1978 was entirely without jurisdiction. It does appear that the fraud was practiced to get the RORs recorded in favour of Respondent No.3 who in turn sold to Respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 even did not possess valid title of the plot in question. He could not have conferred valid title on that basis.

33. The facts here appear to be tell-tale. The fact of the earlier settlement in favour of the Cuttack Municipality was not even noticed in the proceedings before the Additional Tahasildar in OEA Case No.3699/1976, if at all there were genuine proceedings. It will be recalled that these writ appeals were adjourned from time to time to require production of the original records of the said case. This was particularly important in light of the submission on behalf of

W.A. Nos. 467 and 468 of 2010

the CMC as noted in this Court's order dated 19th September, 2022 that: "that there is no record of OEA Case No.3699 of 1976 and that without ascertaining this fact the subsequent sale deeds have been registered in respect of Khata No.917 in Touza No.2499 which according to him stood in the name of CMC since 1931." As it transpires, that record is not available. This was overlooked by both the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order and the Joint Commissioner who dismissed the revision petitions of the CMC. The absence of the original record makes the grant of certified copies of the documents relied upon by the Respondents 2 and 3 in both writ appeals, even more suspicious. The absence of an original record, despite diligent search by the office of the Tahasildar, Cuttack must, in the circumstances explained hereinbefore, lead to an adverse inference against Respondents 2 and 3. This Court has no hesitation to conclude that the original order dated 7th January, 1978 of the OEA Collector-cum-Additional Tahasildar, Cuttack in Vesting Case No. 3699 of 1976 was obtained by fraud.

34. The law is well settled that fraud vitiates all transactions. In S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath AIR 1994 SC 853, the Supreme Court explained:

"The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders,

W.A. Nos. 467 and 468 of 2010

bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation."

In the same decision the Supreme Court explained: "A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another's loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage."

35. In A. V. Pappaya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 211, the Supreme Court held:

"Now, it is well settled principle of law that if any judgment or order is obtained by fraud, it cannot be said to be a judgment or order in law. Before three centuries, Chief Justice Edward Coke proclaimed; "Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal".

It is thus settled proposition of law that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the Court, Tribunal or Authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. Such a judgment, decree or order by the first Court or by the final Court has to be treated as nullity by every Court, superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings. In the leading case of Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley, (1956) 1 All ER 341 Lord Denning observed:

"No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand, if it has been obtained by fraud."

In Duchess of Kingstone, Smith's Leading Cases, 13th Edn., p.644, explaining the nature of fraud, de Grey, C.J. stated that though a judgment would be res judicata and not impeachable from within, it might be impeachable from without. In other words, though it is not permissible to show

W.A. Nos. 467 and 468 of 2010

that the court was 'mistaken', it might be shown that it was 'misled'. There is an essential distinction between mistake and trickery. The clear implication of the distinction is that an action to set aside a judgment cannot be brought on the ground that it has been decided wrongly, namely, that on the merits, the decision was one which should not have been rendered, but it can be set aside, if the court was imposed upon or tricked into giving the judgment. It has been said; Fraud and justice never dwell together (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant); or fraud and deceit ought to benefit none (fraus et dolus nemini patrocinari debent).

Fraud may be defined as an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing some unfair or undeserved benefit by taking undue advantage of another. In fraud one gains at the loss of another. Even most solemn proceedings stand vitiated if they are actuated by fraud. Fraud is thus an extrinsic collateral act which vitiates all judicial acts, whether in rem or in personam. The principle of 'finality of litigation' cannot be stretched to the extent of an absurdity that it can be utilized as an engine of oppression by dishonest and fraudulent litigants."

36. Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 relied upon the decision in Jt. Collector Ranga Reddy Dist (supra) where it was inter alia observed that "Even in cases where the orders sought to be revised are fraudulent, the exercise of power must be within a reasonable period of the discovery of fraud." However, in this particular case the CMC has at the earliest point in time after it discovered the fraud been urging the said plea in the proceedings before various fora. The orders in its favour in the other contemporary proceedings under the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, as noticed earlier, were passed on that basis.

W.A. Nos. 467 and 468 of 2010

37. This Court is satisfied that in the present case the order dated 7th January, 1998 passed by the Additional Tahasildar in OEA Case No.3699 of 1976 was vitiated by fraud and, therefore, all the consequential orders also have to be declared illegal.

38. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. Correspondingly, the orders dated 24th February, 2004 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation dismissing R.P. Case Nos.1612 and 1613 of 2003 is also hereby set aside. Further, and again correspondingly, the order dated 7th January, 1978 of the OEA Collector-cum- Additional Tahasildar, Cuttack in Vesting Case No. 3699 of 1976 recording the settling the lands in favour of the Respondent No.3 is also hereby set aside. If the present occupants of the plots in question do not hand over vacant and peaceful possession thereof to the CMC on or before 1st July, 2023, it will be open to CMC to take possession thereof in accordance with law.

39. The writ appeals are accordingly allowed in the above terms. The interim order is vacated but, in the circumstances, with no order as to costs.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

(G. Satapathy) Judge SK Jena/Secy.

W.A. Nos. 467 and 468 of 2010