Bhagabat Basudev vs Commissioner
2025 Latest Caselaw 5375 Ori

Orissa High Court

Bhagabat Basudev vs Commissioner on 26 March, 2025

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                      W.P.(C) No.17996 of 2014
         (An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)

         Bhagabat Basudev, Marfat Benu                ....            Petitioners
         Parida @ Benudhar Parida @
         Benudhar Sahani and others
                                 -versus-
         Commissioner, Conoslidation,       ....    Opposite Parties
         Odisha, Bhubaneswar and others
               Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
                                 (Virtual/Physical Mode):
                    For Petitioners      -      Mr. H. N. Mohapatra,
                                                Advocate.

                    For Opposite Parties-       Mr. P.K. Satapathy,
                                                Advocate. (for O.Ps.2, 3 & 4)
                                                Mr.T. Kumar,
                                                Addl. Standing Counsel
                                                (for O.P.1)

                    CORAM:
                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA

         Date of Hearing :17.02.2025 :: Date of Judgment :26.03.2025

A.C. Behera, J.               This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the

   Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners praying for

   quashing the final order dated 18.07.2014 (Annexure-4) passed by the

   Commissioner, Consolidation, Odisha, Bhubaneswar (O.P.1) in Revision

   Petition No.910 of 2011.

   2.      The petitioners of this writ petition were the O.P. Nos.5 to 15 in the

   Revision Petition No.910 of 2011 before the O.P.1.


                                                                              Page 1 of 7
   W.P.(C) No.17996 of 2014
         The O.P. Nos.2 to 4 in this writ petition were the petitioners in the

said Revision Petition No.910 of 2011.

3.      The O.P. Nos.2 to 4 of this writ petition being the petitioners filed

Revision Petition No.910 of 2011 under Section 37(1) of the O.C.H. &

P.F.L. Act, 1972 before the O.P.1 praying for recording the case land i.e.

Plot Nos.793 & 794 in total as Ac0.07 decimals in their names instead of

Ac0.06 decimals. Because, during the consolidation operation, the total

area of the said two plots had become Ac0.06 decimals instead of Ac0.07

decimals, although as per the Sabik R.o.R, the corresponding Sabik plots

thereof i.e. sabik Plot No.793 was Ac0.04 decimals and Sabik Plot

No.794 was Ac0.03 decimals in total Ac0.07decimals.

4.      It appears from the impugned order dated 18.07.2014 passed by the

O.P.1 vide Annexure-4 in Revision Petition No.910 of 2011 that, the O.Ps

thereof (petitioners in this writ petition) were absent on call, for which,

that revision petition was heard ex parte from the petitioners thereof and

after hearing ex parte, the said revision was allowed and direction was

given by the O.P.1 to the Tahasildar to conduct field enquiry in respect of

the possession on the basis of Sabik records and to correct the R.o.R. and

map accordingly.

5.      On being aggrieved with the said order dated 18.07.2014

(Annexure-4) passed by the O.P.1, the O.P. Nos.5 to 15 of that revision

petition challenged the said order dated 18.07.2014 (Annexure-4) passed

                                                                   Page 2 of 7
W.P.(C) No.17996 of 2014
 by the O.P.1 by filing this writ petition being the petitioners against the

petitioners in that Revision Petition No.910 of 2011 praying for quashing

the same on the ground that, as per the final orders dated 12.08.1987

(Annexure-2 & 3) passed in Objection Case No.536/60 of 1987 by the

C.O., on the consent of the predecessors of the petitioners thereof i.e.

Hadu Moharana (who was the objector in Objection Case No.536/60 of

1987 before the Consolidation Officer) Ac0.01 decimal from Sabik Plot

Nos.793 & 794 was recorded in favour of O.P.5 (petitioner No.1 in this

writ petition i.e. Bhagabat Basudev) for Bhagabat Ghar and as such,

Bhagabat Ghar is on that Ac.0.01 decimal of land, which is a portion of

Sabik Plot Nos.793 & 794, but in the impugned order dated 18.07.2014

(Annexure-4), the O.P.1 has not taken the said fact into account.

6.      I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners,

learned Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P.1 and learned counsel for O.P.

Nos.2 to 4.

7.      It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners (O.P. Nos.5 to 15 in the Revision Petition No.910 of 2011)

that, no opportunity of hearing has been given to them by the O.P.1 in the

Revision Petition No.910 of 2011 for passing the impugned order dated

18.07.2014

vide Annexure-4.

According to them, unless and until, the final order dated

12.08.1987 passed by the C.O. in Objection Case No.536/60 of 1987 is

set aside, the impugned order dated 18.07.2014 (Annexure-4) cannot be

sustainable under law.

To which, the learned counsel for the O.Ps vehemently objected

contending in support of the impugned order vide Annexure-4 passed by

the O.P.1 and argued that, in the judgment dated 18.07.2014 vide

Annexure-4, the O.P.1 has taken the order dated 12.08.1987 passed in

Objection Case No.536/60 of 1987 by the C.O. into account and as the

O.P.1 is the higher authority of the C.O., for which, on the basis of the

impugned order dated 18.07.2014 passed by the O.P.1 vide Annexure-4,

the orders dated 12.08.1987 passed in Objection Case No.536/60 of 1987

by the C.O. vide Annexure-2 & 3 have been superseded automatically.

So, according to the learned counsel for the O.Ps, there is no justification

under law for making any interference with the impugned order vide

Annexure-4 passed by the O.P.1 through this revision.

8. It is clearly and unambiguously forthcoming from the impugned

order dated 18.07.2014 (Annexure-4) passed by the O.P.1 that, though the

O.P.1 has referred Objection Case No.536/60 of 1987 in Paragraph No.8

of the impugned order dated 18.07.2014 vide Annexure-4, but, the orders

passed in Objection Case No.536/60 of 1987 by the C.O. vide Annexure-

2 & 3 have not been set aside or varied by the O.P.1 in the impugned

order vide Annexure-4. For which, side by side, there are two parallel

orders in respect of the disputed Ac0.01 decimals of land of Sabik Plot

Nos.793 & 794.

That apart, it appears from the impugned order vide Annexure-4

that, O.P. Nos.5 & 11 to 14 (petitioners in this writ petition) have not

participated in the hearing of that Revision Petition No.910 of 2011, but

they are eagerly interested for participating with the same for hearing of

that Revision Petition No.910 of 2011 on merit.

9. When, it appears from the impugned order vide Annexure-4 passed

in Revision Petition No.910 of 2011 by the O.P.1 that, the O.P. Nos.5 &

11 to 14 have not participated in the hearing of the Revision Petition

No.910 of 2011 and the O.P.1 has not whispered a single word in the

impugned order dated 18.07.2014 (Annexure-4) about the legality and

propriety of the orders dated 12.08.1987 (Annexure-2 & 3) passed by the

C.O. in Objection Case No.536/60 of 1987 in respect of the case land,

then at this juncture, the impugned order dated 18.07.2014 passed in

Revision Petition No.910 of 2011 by the O.P.1 cannot be sustainable

under law.

For which, this matter is required to be remanded back to the O.P.1

after setting aside the impugned order dated 18.07.2014 (Annexure-4)

passed by the O.P.1 for its fresh disposal as per law after giving

opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned and to decide the

Revision Petition No.910 of 2011 afresh as per law giving observations

about the legality and propriety of the orders dated 12.08.1987

(Annexure-2 & 3) passed in Objection Case No.536/60 of 1987 by the

C.O.

So, there is justification under law for making interference with the

impugned order dated 18.07.2014 (Annexure-4) passed by the O.P.1 in

Revision Petition No.910 of 2011 through this writ petition filed by the

petitioners.

10. As such, there is some merit in the writ petition of the petitioners.

The same must succeed in part.

11. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed in part.

The impugned order dated 18.07.2014 (Annexure-4) passed in

Revision Petition No.910 of 2011 by the O.P.1 is quashed (set aside).

The matter i.e. Revision Petition No.910 of 2011 is remitted back

to the O.P.1 for its disposal afresh as per law after giving opportunity of

being heard to the parties thereof and to decide the same on merit taking

into account the legality and propriety of the orders dated 12.08.1987

(Annexure-2 & 3) passed by the C.O. in Objection Case No.536/60 of

1987 as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from

the date of appearance of the parties before O.P.1.

12. The parties to this writ petition are directed to appear before the

O.P.1 in Revision Petition No.910 of 2011 on 15.04.2025 in order to

receive direction of the O.P.1 as to further proceedings of the said

Revision Petition No.910 of 2011.

13. Registry is directed to communicate this judgment immediately to

the O.P.1.

14. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of finally.

(A.C. Behera), Judge.

Orissa High Court, Cuttack.

26.03.2025//Utkalika Nayak// Junior Stenographer

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 26-Mar-2025 17:22:01