The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950) W.P.(C) No.28167 of 2024 Bata Krishna Rout and others …. Petitioners -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Petitioners -
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S.K. Pattanayak, Advocate. For Opposite Parties- Mr. B. Tripathy, Advocate. for O.P.4 Mr. Tej Kumar, Addl. Standing Counsel. for O.Ps.1 to 3 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :13.02.2025 :: Date of Judgment :25.02.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging an order, which was passed on dated 18.03.2024 (Annexure- 3) in R.C. No.777 of 2010 by the Commissioner Consolidation, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.2) for condonation of delay. 2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition is that, on dated 14.04.2015, final order in R.C. No.777 of 2010 was passed accepting the prayer of the petitioner (opposite party No.4 in this writ petition) without W.P.(C) No.28167 of 2024 Page 1 of 5 deciding the point of limitation first. For which, the opposite parties of the said revision challenged the same by filing a writ petition vide W.P.(C) No.11253 of 2016 before the Hon’ble Courts. The Hon’ble Courts allowed that writ petition vide W.P.(C) No.11253 of 2016 directing the Commissioner (Opposite Party No.2) to decide on the limitation point first in R.C. No.777 of 2010 after hearing from both the sides. Thereafter, as per the direction of the Hon’ble Courts in W.P.(C) No.11253 of 2016, the opposite party No.2 considered the application for condonation of delay in R.C. No.777 of 2010 first and after hearing from both the sides, the opposite party No.2 allowed that petition for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner (opposite party No.4 in this writ petition) as per the guidelines of the Full Bench decision of this Hon’ble Courts in Gulzar Khan’s case stating that, “Power under Section 37 of the OCH & PFL Act, 1972 in a revision is available to be exercised by the Commissioner of Consolidation on the facts and circumstances of the case involved therein and there is no time limit for exercising of such power. When the present revision is for correction of the entries in the R.o.R. allegedly made erroneously by the Consolidation Authorities and no delay is made out as per the averments, for which, the limitation aspect is decided in favour of the petitioner and the revision is posted to 15.07.2024 for arguments.” W.P.(C) No.28167 of 2024 Page 2 of 5 3. On being aggrieved with the said order dated 18.03.2024 (Annexure-3) passed in R.C. No.777 of 2010 by the opposite party No.2, in this writ petition, the opposite parties in R.C. No.777 of 2010 filed this writ petition being the petitioners arraying the petitioner of that revision as opposite party No.4 on the ground that, long 22 years delay in filing revision cannot be condoned, because, such delay is an inordinate delay. 4. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State (opposite party Nos.1 to 3) and learned counsel for the opposite party No.4. 5. Now the question arises, whether the Commissioner Consolidation (opposite party No.2) had power and jurisdiction to condone 22 years delay in entertaining the revision vide R.C. No.777 of 2010 under Section 37 of the OCH & PFL, Act, 1972. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Bhagaban Jena & Ors Vrs. State of Orissa and Ors. reported in 2007 (I) CLR—769, delay of more than 19 years in filing the revision application before Commissioner under Section 37 of the OCH & PFL Act is maitainable. Because, power under Section 37 of the said Act has been vested in Commissioner Consolidation i.e. to come to the aid of hard pressed people. (ii) In a case between Tarachand Agrawal Vrs. State of Orissa and another reported in 2018 (2) O.J.R. (377), no illegality has been committed by the Joint Commissioner while condoning delay in filing the revision. (iii) In Division Bench decision of this Hon’ble Courts between Siba Muduli and others Vrs. Director, Consolidation, Odisha, Cuttack W.P.(C) No.28167 of 2024 Page 3 of 5 and others reported in 2021 (II) CLR—997 that, the Commissioner/Director of Consolidation can entertain a petition at any point of time, as there is no period of limitation prescribed for the same under Section 37 of the OCH & PFL Act, wherein it has also been held that, the Commissioner/Director of Consolidation can exercise jurisdiction under Section 37 of the said Act within a reasonable time, which may extend to 20 to 30 years, in cases where the facts of the case involved any of the following factual/legal aspects i.e. (i) When the order impugned is passed on the basis of fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation made by a party or based on a fraudulent document. (ii) When the order was passed is inherently without any jurisdiction or is passed by a person who has no authority to pass such an order. (iii) When an order is passed adversely affecting the interest of a minor without being represented by legal guardian and it includes the perpetual minor like deity. (iv) When any Government land or community land has been grabbed by an abuse of process of law, and (v) When the order impugned before the Revisional authority is passed in complete disregard of the provisions of law guiding the field. 6. Here, in this instant matter, the Revisional Court i.e. opposite party No.2 has condoned the delay in R.C. No.777 of 2010 as per Annexure-3 assigning the reasons that, “when the said revision has been filed for correction of entries in the R.o.R. allegedly made erroneously by the Consolidation Authorities, for which, there is no impediment under law for condonation of delay”, then at this juncture, the above reasons assigned by the opposite party No.2 for condonation of delay, when the case comes within the parameter Nos.(i) & (v) of the guidelines made by the above Division Bench decision of this Hon’ble Courts reported in W.P.(C) No.28167 of 2024 Page 4 of 5 2021 (II) CLR—997 and when in this revision, there is delay of 22 years and when the above period of delay is also coming within the purview of the above division bench decision of this Hon’ble Courts for the condonation of delay, then at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, it cannot be held that, order dated 18.03.2024 vide Annexure-3 passed by the opposite party No.2 in R.C. No.777 of 2010 for condonation of delay is unreasonable. For which, there is no justification under law for making interference with the same through this writ petition filed by the petitioners. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition of the petitioners. The same must fail. 7. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed on contest. 8.
Decision
As such, the writ petition is disposed of finally. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. 25.02.2025//Utkalika Nayak// Junior Stenographer (A.C. Behera), Judge. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 28-Feb-2025 15:25:33 W.P.(C) No.28167 of 2024 Page 5 of 5