The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950) W.P.(C) No.32955 of 2023 Gandharba Barik …. Petitioner -versus- Commissioner of Consolidation, Odisha, Bhubaneswar and Others …. Opposite Parties Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Petitioner -
Legal Reasoning
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 Page 1 of 5 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, Page 2 of 5 “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 Page 3 of 5 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.
Decision
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). Page 4 of 5 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. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. 13.10.2025//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: 14-Oct-2025 12:16:42 Page 5 of 5