The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6559 of 2015 Haripad Puhan and Others …. Petitioners Mr. B.C. Panda, Advocate -versus- Addl. Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Balasore and Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate Mr. S. Pattnaik, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 23.09.2024 20. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition inter alia challenging order dated 20.02.2015, so passed by learned Addl. Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No.414 of 2013 under Annexure-4. 4. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that challenging the joint recording of the land in question in the name of Satyabhama Nayak and Bholanath Behera under Annexure-1. // 2 // Bholanath Behera, the common ancestors of the private Opp. Parties filed an application under Section 9(3) of the OCH and PFL Act (for short “the Act”) against Satyabhama in Objection Case No.1739 of 1992. The said objection case was dismissed vide order dated 15.11.1994 and thereby the C.O. did not interfere with the joint recording of the suit land in the name of Satyabhama and Bholanath as made under Annexure-1. 4.1. It is contended that without disclosing the dismissal of the objection case filed by Lt. Bholanath Behera in Objection Case No.1739 of 1992, private Opp. Parties filed an application under Section 37(2) of the Act before the learned Director, Consolidation and the matter was remitted to the C.O. once again. The C.O. after such remand of the matter, rejected the claim of the private Opp. Parties. Against such order, private Opp. Parties approached the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority also rejected the appeal. Challenging both the orders passed by the C.O. and the Appellate Authority, the Revision in question was filed by the private Opp. Parties before the Revisional Authority. 4.2. It is contended that even though dismissal of the objection case so filed by Lt. Bholanath Behera, the common ancestors of the private Opp. Parties in Page 2 of 6 // 3 // Objection Case No.1739 of 1992 was raised and it was indicated in the impugned order, but without discussing the same and it’s applicability in its proper perspective to the claim of the private Opp. Parties, Revisional Authority while setting aside the order passed by the C.O. as well as the Appellate Authority, allowed the Revision and with a direction to record the suit land in the name of the private Opp. Parties exclusively. 4.3. It is contended that similar prayer made by Lt. Bholanath was rejected in Objection Case No.1739 of 1992 and the said issue was raised by the petitioners before the Revisional Authority, which was taken note of. But without discussing the issue with regard to non-applicability of the order passed in Objection Case No.1739 of 1992, the Revision since was allowed, it cannot sustain in the eye of law. 4.4. It is accordingly contended that matter be remitted to Revisional Court to re-decide the claim taking into account the relevancy and effect of the order passed in Objection Case No.1739 of 1992 in its proper perspective.
Legal Reasoning
5. Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for private Opp. Parties on the other hand while supporting the impugned order contended that even though relevancy and effect of order passed in Objection Case No.1739 of Page 3 of 6 // 4 // 1992, was not taken note of by the Revisional Authority while allowing the Revision, but the Revisional Authority after thorough discussion, came to a conclusion that the suit land was never purchased out of joint family income of Lt. Kapila and Mathuri. 5.1. In view of such finding arrived at by the Revisional Authority, Revisional Authority allowed the claim of the private Opp. Parties so made in the Revision Application. It is accordingly contended that even though the effect of order passed in the Objection Case was not taken note of by the Commissioner, in view of the clear finding that the suit land was not purchased out of joint income of Lt. Kapila and Mathuri, the Revision was rightly allowed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the suit land was recorded jointly in the name of Satyabhama and Bholanath under Annexure-1. Seeking deletion of the name of Satyabhama from the ROR, so issued under Annexure-1, Bholanath filed Objection Case No.1739 of 1992 under Section 9(3) of the Act. The said Objection Case was dismissed vide order dated 15.11.1994 and the said fact is not disputed by the either of the parties. 6.1. Thereafter, private Opp. Parties moved an application under Section 37(2) of the Act seeking Page 4 of 6 // 5 // deletion of the name of Satyabhama from the ROR. The said claim of the private Opp. Parties on remand was rejected by the C.O. as well as by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 07.09.2011 under Annexure-2 and 03.10.2013 under Annexure-3. 6.2. Challenging both the orders, private Opp. Parties moved the Revisional Authority in Revision Case No.414 of 2013. As found from the impugned order, Revisional Authority though took note of the earlier order passed in Objection Case No.1739 of 1992, but without giving any finding with regard to its non- applicability to the claim of the private opp. parties allowed the revision. 6.3. In view of such material irregularity, which is apparent on the face of the impugned order, this Court is inclined to quash order dated 20.02.2015 so passed by the Revisional Authority in the Revision Case No.414 of 2013. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to the learned Commissioner to re- decide the issue by giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and private Opp. Parties. It is further observed that while re-deciding the issue, relevancy and effect of the order passed in Objection Case No.1739 of 1992 shall be taken into consideration and so also other points that will be raised by both the Page 5 of 6 // 6 // parties before the Revisional Authority in course of hearing. 6.4. Since the case is of the year 2013, learned Commissioner is directed to re-decide the issue within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of this order. In order to avoid delay, petitioners and private Opp. Parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner on 04.10.2024 along with a copy of this order. However, it is further observed that this Court has not expressed any opinion in the merits and contention of either of the parties. 7.
Decision
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Designation: SR. STENO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 27-Sep-2024 12:06:46 Page 6 of 6