O.J.C No. 4232 of 1997
6 03.12. 2016 Heard Miss. D.Mohapatra, learned copunsel for the pet
itioner and Sri K.K.Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the opposite
party nos.1, 2 and 3. In spite of valid service of notice on opposite party no.4, there is no
appearance. The matter is decided only considering the submissions of the learned counsel appe
aring for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate.
Assailing the impugned order dated 27.5.1996, Miss. Mohapatra, learned counsel
referring to the document vide Annexure-1, an order passed in Partition Case No.2 of 1989 file
d under Section 6(1) of the Orissa Consolidation, Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation of La
nd Act, 1972 submitted that once the father of the opposite party no.4 along with the petiti
oner and others have entered into a compromise and obtained an order under Section 6 (1) of th
e Orissa Consolidation, Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972, there is no
scope for entertaining any such dispute in exercise of power under Section 37 of the Orissa
Consolidation, Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It is, thus, contend
ed that entertaining the application was per se illegal.
Sri Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State t
hough not disputed the grounds raised by Miss. Mohapatra, in objecting the revisional order b
ut submitted that there is possibility of reopening of the issue only in the case of allegatio
n of fraud.
