1045 of the opposite parties 2 to 4 and accordingly ROR under Section 22 of the OCH & PFL Act was published on 22.10.1987. It is submitted that during that period the father of the petitioner, namely, Kelu Charan Baral, became ill and bedridden. Thus, he could not take any step to file appropriate objection before the Consolidation authorities to correct the discrepancy in the recordings. However, in the year 2000, when the petitioner went to the spot to construct his house, as it is a residential plot, the opposite parties raised objection stating therein that the land has been recorded in their name in the consolidation proceeding. Accordingly, he filed the present revision. Mr.Nayak further submitted that the petitioner was not residing in the village as he was a Central Government employee and could not know about wrong recording of the case land in the name of the opposite parties. In fact, his father was looking after the case who subsequently fell ill and was completely bedridden during the relevant period. In support of his case, he had filed certain documents, but learned Commissioner without considering the same, rejected the Revision holding it to be barred by time by more than 14 years.
