P. Ganesh Kumar Vs the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur

“It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court would be pleased to admit this writ application, issue a rule NISI calling upon the opposite parties to file show cause as to why the order dated 07.04.2021 in R.C. case no. 252 of 2013 passed by Addl. Commissioner Consolidation and Settlement, Sambalpur (Opposite Party No.l) shall not be quashed within a stipulated time. If the Opposite parties fail to file show cause or show insufficient cause this Hon'ble Court would be pleased to make absolute the said rule and issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari, any other appropriate writ or writs quashing the impugned order dated 07.04.2021 in R.C. case no. 252 of 2013 passed by Opposite Party No.l, within a stipulated time. And further be pleased to passed such order/orders, direction/directions deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

¶15

As seen from the averments made in the application and the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, initially the order passed by the Authority was set aside by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 26744 of 2013

¶16

allowing the Petitioner to appear before the Additional Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement, Sambalpur on 27.05.2014, whereupon the said authority having given an opportunity of being heard disposed of the matter lying before it in Consolidation Revision Case No. 352 of 2013. Accordingly, the Authority having given an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner passed the impugned order.

¶17

From the impugned order, it emerges that the Opposite Party who had challenged the validity of the Sale Deed executed in favour of the Petitioner before the Civil Court and the matter has been taken through the First Appeal and the Second Appeal which is pending before this Court as submitted.

¶18

In the impugned order, the learned Additional Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement, Sambalpur has given a vivid narration to the facts emerging in the case and disposed of the Revision with the observation that the consolidation of operation having been completed and the notification under Section 41 of the Orissa Consolidation of Land Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1972 directed the Tahasildar, Attabira to effect necessary correction in the ROR.

¶19

Learned counsel for the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any material on record so as to the sustainability of the impugned order. Even otherwise, there is no apparent wrong in the impugned order which deserves the indulgence of this Court. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the matter in question being one in respect to the validity of the sale

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

deed has rightly been approached before the Civil Court and the same is pending.

¶22

Consequently, there appears no illegality in the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner Consolidation Settlement, Sambalpur as such the Writ Application being devoid of merit, stands disposed of.

¶23

(Chittaranjan Dash)

¶24

Judge

¶25

Priyanka

¶26

Digitally SignedSigned by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHANDesignation: Senior StenographerReason: eMudhra.App.Views.PartialControls.SigningModeTab.SigningTabViewModelLocation: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACKDate: 16-Apr-2026 16:52:22

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Page 3 of 3

P. Ganesh Kumar v. the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Ganesh Kumar v. the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mamata Parida Vs Md,Central Warehous

Gobinda Moharana Vs Mahindra Gujarat Tractors Ltd., Ahmadabad

Somyakanta Thatoi Vs Collector, Jajpur

Gopabandhu Behera Vs Commissioner Consolidation, Odisha

M/S Pgs Construction, Grand Road, Puri Vs the Real Estate, Appellate Tribunal, Bbsr

Pabitra Parida Vs Rabi Narayan Parida