Dismissed

Bhujarat Bhoi v. Joint Commissioner

Orissa HC23 Sept 2019OJC/5637/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of two writ petitions concerning land consolidation and land revenue appeal. Court observed factual dispute on possession requiring adjudication by appellate authority and disposed of cases while vacating interim order.

What did the court decide?

OJC No.5637 of 1999 disposed of by setting aside order dated 12.02.1999 and remanding revision case for fresh adjudication after OLR Appeal disposed of. Interim status quo order vacated.

Bhujarat Bhoi Vs Joint Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

O.J.C. No.5637 of 1999

¶2

O.J.C. No.9330 of 2000 & O.J.C. No.5637 of 1999

¶3

23.09.2019 Consolidated Cause title filed in Court in both the writ petitioners are taken on record.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶5

The petitioners in OJC No.9330 of 2000 assails the order dated 12.07.2000 (Annexure-1) passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Revenue), Bargarh in OLR Revision Case No.1 of 1999 remitting the matter back to the Sub-Collector, Bargarh to decide the OLR Appeal No.2 of 1996 in respect of Village Singhenpali in the district of Baragarh.

¶6

In OJC No.5637 of 1999 the petitioners assail the order dated 12.02.1999 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation, Sambalpur in Consolidation Revision No.154 of 1995, filed by opposite parties 3 to 8 therein under Section 37(1) of the OCH & PFL Act, 1972 (for short, ‘the Act’), whereby he allowed the said Revision directing to record the names of opposite party Nos. 3 to 8 to the exclusion of the petitioners, whose names were earlier recorded by the Consolidation authorities in the ROR published under Section 22 of the Act.

¶7

Mr.Dillip Kumar Sahu, earned counsel for the petitioners submits that the revisional authority under the OLR Act did not at all scrutinize the materials on record properly and remitted the mater back to the sub-Collector, Bargarh for fresh adjudication. It is his case that the petitioners in OLR Revision Case were recorded tenants in respect of the case land and are possessing the same. The

¶8

¶9

case land was settled in their favour in OEA proceeding. Though the documents to that effect were also available before the Revisional Court, he without considering same, remitted the matter back to the appellate authority for reexamination with certain observations to pass an order taking into consideration the documents referred to therein.

¶10

Mr.Panigrahi, learned counsel for the contesting opposite party submits the members of family of opposite parties are the Sikimi tenants in respect of the said land and they are in possession over the same. Thus, the revisional authority in order to find out as to who is/are in actual possession, has rightly remitted the matter to the appellate authority to examine the same and pass necessary orders.

¶11

Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it appears that there is a serious dispute with regard to possession over the case land, which requires factual adjudication. This Court, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not delve into the same. At this stage, learned counsel for both the parties want to rely upon some more documents in support of their case in respect of the case land.

¶12

Be that as it may, since there is a serious dispute with regard to possession over the case land and the revisional authority has directed the appellant-authority to examine the same taking into consideration the materials available on record, this Court while confirming the

¶13

¶14

impugned order directs that if the parties are so advised may file further documents in support of their possession and title over the case land before the appellate authority. Accordingly, OJC No.9330 of 2000 stands disposed of with the observation made above.

¶15

8.1 Since disposal of Consolidation Revision No.154 of 1995 will be dependent upon disposal of the OLR Appeal No.2 of 1996, OJC No.5637 of 1999 is disposed of setting aside the order dated 12.02.1999 passed in Revision Case No.154 of 1995 and the Revision Case shall be adjudicated afresh after disposal of the OLR Appeal No.2 of 1996.

¶16

The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

¶17

Interim order of status quo dated 13.05.1999 passed in Misc. Case No.5265 of 1999 stands vacated.

¶18

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶19

.................................

¶20

K.R. Mohapatra, J.

¶21

¶22

Bhujarat Bhoi v. Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhujarat Bhoi v. Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karunakar Acharya Vs General Traders

Siba Pr. Sahoo Vs Chairman,O.S.R.T.C.

Karna Mahanta Vs Brahmananda Sahoo

Bujharat Bhoi Vs Markanda Ghasi

Purna Ch.Mishra Vs Commnr.,Cosolidn.

Judhistir Naik Vs Atul Krushna Mishra