Orissa High Court
Gandharba Barik vs Commissioner Of Consolidation on 13 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.32955 of 2023
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
Gandharba Barik .... Petitioner
-versus-
Commissioner of Consolidation, .... Opposite Parties
Odisha, Bhubaneswar and Others
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Petitioner - Mr. Hrudananda Mohapatra,
Advocate.
For Opposite Parties - Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty,
Standing Counsel
Mr. S. Behera,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing and Judgment :13.10.2025
A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for
quashing the impugned order dated 09.06.2023 (Annexure-4) passed in
Revision Case No.81 of 2021 by the Commissioner Consolidation,
Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.1) on the ground that, the impugned order passed
by the O.P. No.1 is baseless, because the O.P. No.1 has decided the
Revision Case No.81 of 2021 taking into consideration to some
extraneous materials without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to
explain about the authenticity, genuineness and relevancy of the said
extraneous materials.
To which, learned counsel for O.P. Nos.4 to 6 vehemently objected
contending that, the case land has been recorded properly by the
Consolidation Authorities under Hal Khata No.256, Plot No.1199 Ac0.13
decimals in the name of the petitioner on the basis of the title deeds,
because the donor of the petitioner had purchased the case land from its
exclusive owner i.e. Mahani Singh. That, Mahani Singh had transferred
the same to Sindhu Barik through a registered sale deed. After the death
of Sindhu Barik, his wife Hadi Bewa had gifted the case land to the
predecessor of the O.P. Nos.4 to 6 i.e. Khetramohan Barik. For which, the
case land has been properly recorded in the name of Khetramohan Barik.
2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel
for O.P. Nos.4 to 6 and learned Standing counsel for O.P. Nos.1 to 3.
3. The document submitted by the petitioner said to have been issued
by the Asst. Consolidation Officer, Kakatpur shows that, Sabik Hal Khata
No.604 Plot No.899 Ac0.19 decimals corresponds to Hal Khata No.256,
Hal Plot No.1199 Ac0.13 decimals, which also corresponds to LR Plot
No.1162. The said properties were recorded in the names of Rama Barik
S/o Laxman Barik, Sindhu Barik S/o Braja Barik.
In the impugned order dated 09.06.2023 (Annexure-4), it has been
reflected by the O.P. No.1 that,
"the case land was recorded in the name of Mahani Singh S/o
Bhagabat Singh having 50% share and Madhu Padhan, Madan
Padhan S/o Shyam Padhan having 50% share under sthitiban status.
Mahani Singh S/o Bhagabat Singh had transferred their 50% share
out of Sabik Plot No.899 Ac0.19 decimals i.e. Ac0.09 ½ decimals in
favour of Sindhu Barik S/o Braja Barik through RSD dated
02.12.1941. Later on, after the death of Sindhu Barik, his wife Hadi
Bewa transferred that Ac.0.095 decimals of Plot No.899 in favour of
Khetramohan Barik. Information shows Sabik Plot No.899
corresponds to Plot No.1199 Ac0.13 decimals in consolidation
operation. Therefore, considering these documents, record of Hal
Plot No.1199 Ac0.13 decimals has been prepared in the name of
Khetramohan Barik S/o Dinabandhu Barik under Hal Khata No.256.
The petitioner in this writ petition (petitioner in Revision Case
No.81 of 2021) could not establish his claim showing relevant
document. For which, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is
dismissed on merit."
4. When, the so called document filed by the petitioner of this writ
petition (petitioner in Revision Case No.81 of 2021) issued by the
Assistant Consolidation Officer shows that, the case land vide Hal Plot
No.1199 corresponds to Sabik Plot No.899 was originally recorded in the
name of Rama Barik and Sindhu Barik and when in the impugned order
dated 09.06.2023 passed in Revision Case No.81 of 2021 by the O.P.
No.1, it has been indicated that, the case land was originally recorded in
the name of Mahani Singh, Madhu Padhan and Madan Padhan and when
there is no material in the record to show, how the case land came from
Mahani Singh, Madhu Padhan & Madan Padhan to the members of Barik
family i.e. to Rama Barik and Sindhu Barik and when own documents of
the Consolidation Authorities i.e. the document issued by the Assistant
Consolidation Officer and the impugned order passed by the O.P. No.1
has no relation with each other relating to flow of title from Singh and
Padhan family to Barik family, then at this juncture, it is held that, the
impugned order has no clarity.
5. It is the settled propositions of law that, every order passed by the
Court or any Authority must have clarity.
6. When, the impugned order has no clarity for the reasons assigned
above, then at this juncture, the impugned order dated 09.06.2023
(Annexure-4) passed in Revision Case No.81 of 2021 by the
Commissioner Consolidation, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.1) cannot be
sustainable under law.
Therefore, there is justification under law for making interference
with the impugned order dated 09.06.2023 passed in Revision Case
No.81 of 2021 by the Commissioner Consolidation, Bhubaneswar (O.P.
No.1) through this writ petition filed by the petitioner.
As such, there is some merit in the writ petition filed by the
petitioner. The same is to be allowed in part.
7. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part.
The impugned order dated 09.06.2023 (Annexure-4) passed in
Revision Case No.81 of 2021 by the Commissioner Consolidation,
Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.1) is quashed (set aside).
The matter vide Revision Case No.81 of 2021 is remitted back
(remanded back) to the Commissioner Consolidation, Bhubaneswar (O.P.
No.1) to decide the same afresh with clarity as per law after giving
opportunity of being heard to the parties indicating the flow of title of the
case land in detail as expeditiously as possible within a period of three
months from the date of appearance of the parties.
8. The parties in this writ petition are directed to appear before the
Commissioner Consolidation, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.1) in Revision Case
No.81 of 2021 on dated 22.10.2025 and to produce the certified copy of
this judgment for the purpose of receiving the directions of O.P. No.1 as
to further proceedings of the said Revision Case No.81 of 2021.
9. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of
finally.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
13.10.2025//Utkalika Nayak//
Junior Stenographer
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by:
UTKALIKA NAYAK
Reason:
Authentication
Location: High Court
of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 14-Oct-2025
12:16:42
