W.P.(C) No. 2181 of 2012 · Orissa High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
02 decimal is quashed and the writ petitions are disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
According to the writ petitioner, he had filed two revisions before the Commissioner under Section 37(1) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Lands Act, 1972 (for short, ‘the Consolidation Act’) which were registered as R.C. Nos.149 and 150 of 2009. In R.C. No.149 of 2009, the petitioner sought for a direction to the Consolidation Officer-cum-Addl. Sub-Collector, Balikuda, opposite party no.4 to correct the R.O.R. in respect of Plot No.647 under Consolidation Khata No.522 of village-Bhoda by recording the area of the plot as Ac.0.13 decimal instead of the recorded area of Ac.0.11 decimal and to correct the map accordingly. Similarly, in R.C. No.150 of 2009, the petitioner sought for a direction to opposite party no.4 to correct the consolidation map in respect of Plot No.648 under Consolidation Khata No.310 of village-Bhoda by enhancing the area from Ac.0.09 decimal to Ac.0.11 decimal so as to tally the map with the area shown in the consolidation R.O.R. Taking up both the revision cases together, the learned Commissioner passed the impugned common order dated
29.12.2009 disallowing the petitioner’s prayer in both the 2 revision cases. While dismissing the revision cases, the Commissioner further directed the opposite party nos.4 and 5 to reduce the area of Plot No.648 in the R.O.R. from Ac.0.11 decimal to Ac.0.09 decimal in order to tally it with the area shown in the map. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner filed two review applications registered as Misc. Case Nos.18 and 19 of 2010 seeking review of the common order dated 29.12.2009 but, the learned Commissioner passed the impugned common order dated 07.06.2011 rejecting his prayer for review observing inter alia that the Consolidation Act does not confer the power of review on the Commissioner. On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that the Commissioner can exercise power of review under Section 114 read with Order-47, Rule-1 of the C.P.C. which is untenable. Neither Section-44 of the Consolidation Act contemplates that the provisions of Section-114 and/or Order-47 of C.P.C. are applicable to proceedings under the Consolidation Act, nor does the Act anywhere give the power of review to the consolidation authorities.
The learned counsel for the petitioner cited a decision in the case of Baishnab Charan Badu -Vrs.- Commissioner of Consolidation, Orissa and others, reported in 95 (2003) CLT 151, wherein it is observed that the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to proceeding under the Consolidation Act. Further submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revisional authority does not have jurisdiction to go beyond the prayer made in the revision petitions and for that the direction given by the Commissioner to correct the Consolidation Khata No.310 by way of reduction of the area 3 of Plot No.648 from Ac.0.11 decimal to Ac.0.09 decimal without any such prayer being made by any of the parties to the revision proceedings is not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the State however supports the impugned order dated 29.12.2009 submitting that the revisional authority under the Consolidation Act has unfettered power to even act on its own motion to call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken up by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the regularity of the proceedings or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by the subordinate authority. On a bare reading of the impugned order dated
Operative part
29.12.2009, it is found that before giving the direction to the Consolidation Officer to reduce the area of Plot No.648 in the R.O.R., the learned Commissioner did not give the writ petitioner a chance of hearing. It was nobody’s case that the area of the plot as recorded in the R.O.R. was incorrect. The writ petitioner had approached the Commissioner for correction of the map in respect of Plot No.648. If at all the Commissioner, while examining the case record, found that the R.O.R. was incorrect, he ought to have called upon the writ petitioner to show-cause as to why the area shown in the R.O.R. should not be reduced. Since the petitioner did not get the opportunity of being heard on the matter of reduction of the area recorded in the R.O.R., the principle of natural justice has been violated and for that the direction for correction of the R.O.R. by way of reduction of the area of the plot is liable to be quashed. However, it is left to the discretion of the learned Commissioner to exercise his revisional 4 jurisdiction in respect of the aforestated matter and pass necessary order only after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties interested or likely to be affected by such order. In the result, the direction given to opposite party Nos.4 and 5 for reduction of the area of Hal Plot No.648 by Ac.0.02 decimal is quashed and the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. Raghubir Dash, J. …………………..… Debasis 5 6
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: 02 decimal is quashed and the writ petitions are disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Lands Act, 1972; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.