Orissa High Court
Kailash Ch. Sahoo vs Commissioner on 20 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.20603 OF 2011
Kailash Ch. Sahoo .... Petitioner(s)
Mr.B.Bhuyan,Adv.
-versus-
Commissioner, Land Records & .... Opposite Party(s)
Settlement, Orissa and others Mr.S.P.Panda,AGA
Mr.H.S.Satapathy,Adv.
CORAM:
JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
ORDER
Order No. 20.02.2023
14. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
2. This Writ Petition involves a challenge to the order dated
22.09.2002 involving Objection Case No.7406 of 2000 appearing at
Annexure-25, Mr.Bhuyan, learned counsel for the Petitioner referring
to the order submits that the Original Authority passed a cryptic order
in deciding a dispute under the O.C.H & P.F.L. Act.
3. Taking this Court to the Appeal order part Annexure-26, it is
claimed that Appeal preferred as against such order taken up together
with three other proceedings which are all being allowed in favour of
the Petitioner. In further challenge of the Petitioner, the revision being
preferred by the private Opposite Parties herein. Taking this Court to
the order at Annexure-8, the Revisional order claiming also involving
the order at Annexure-25.
4. Mr.Bhuyan, learned counsel for the Petitioner claims looking to
the nature of order unreasoned and cryptic one vide Annexure-25, it is
// 2 //
not understood what order of the Consolidation Officer is approved
by the Revisional Authority. In the circumstance, Mr.Bhuyan, seeks
setting aside the order at Annexure-25 as well as Annexure-28.
5. Mr.Satapathy, learned counsel for Opposite Party Nos.4 to 10
bringing in reference to the same order dated 28.09.2002 appears to
have been filed in W.P.(C) No.21190 of 2011 claims that the order at
Annexure-25 is unreasoned one is not correct. Further taking this
Court to the discussion on merit of the revision involved therein, an
attempt is made to support the revisional order.
6. Learned State Counsel also supports the stand taken by private
Opposite parties, however there is no dispute on the claim of the
Petitioner that the order at Annexure-25 was a cryptic one.
7. Considering the rival contentions of the Parties, this Court first
of all taking to the claim of learned counsel for the private Opposite
Party Nos.4 to 10 and looking to the documents at Annexure-A/4 in
the counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No.21190 of 2011 finds, there is no
dispute at bar that this proceeding involves the Objection Case
No.7442 of 2002 which has no connection with the order at
Annexure-25, considering that there is independent decision
involving Objection Case No.7406 of 2000. In this circumstance this
Court rejects the claim of learned counsel for Opposite Party Nos.4 to
10.
8. Coming back to the nature of challenge in confirmation of the
Original Authority order by the Revisional Authority at Annexure-28,
this Court here reads the order of the Original Authority in deciding
in exercise of power under Section 9 of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act
appended herein at page-100 finds the order reads as follows:-
"ORDER SHEET
Objection Case No.7406/2000
Kailash Ch. Sahu S/o Sanyasi Sahu of Vill! Jaraka
// 3 //
-Vrs-
Mahendra Sahu & Others S/o Sanyasi Sahu of Jaraka
12.9.02
Received the 9(3) case No.7406/2000 from the
A.C.O. Kantigedia for disposal u/s 11 of the Act.
Issue notice to the parties to be present before the
court of the Consolidation Officer, Dharmasala fixing
date on 22.9.02.
Sd/- Illegible
C.O. Dharmasala
22.9.02
Notice duly served. S.R. back. Parties are present
O.S. in case No.7447/2000
"ଦାବି ନାମଂଜୁର"
Pronounced the order in the open court today the
nd
22 Sep' 2002."
Sd/- Illegible
C.O. Dharmasala
Dict.
Sd/-Illegible
C.O.
Looking to the conclusion given by the Revisional Authority,
this Court finds, the Revisional Authority after the detailed discussion
came to observe, confirming the order of the Revisional Authority
vide Annexure-28 page-121 at paragraph-1 reads as follows:-
"16. Under the circumstances, I am inclined to
interfere in the impugnment judgment. The order of the
Deputy Director is set aside and that of Consolidation
Officer is upheld".
9. In the circumstance, this Court finds, for there is no discussion
and reasoned in passing the order at Annexure-25, it is not understood
which part of the order of the Consolidation Officer is concerned?
This Court finds, the Revisional order so far it relates to the order
involving Objection Case No.7406 of 2000 not sustainable in the eye
of law which is interfered and set aside. However, for there is
requirement of reconsideration of the revision in so far as it involves
Objection Case No.7406 of 2000, there should be re-adjudication of
// 4 //
the revision proceeding in respect of the said proceeding. Both parties
are directed to attend the Revisional Authority along with copy of this
order and take a date of further hearing on the matter within ten days
and the revision is also directed to be disposed of at least within a
period of three months.
10. For there is open remand of the matter, the Revisional
Authority is directed to enter into the hearing of the matter afresh
while deciding the revision will also be undertaken the exercise as to
the order dated 22.09.2002 passed in Objection Case No.7406 of
2000, if sustainable in the eye of law? And give his views
independent of the observation already there in the revisional order
involved herein.
11. The Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biswanath Rath)
Judge
S.Dash
