JUDGMENT

DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, C.J. — This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 4.8.2006 passed by the Tahasildar, Pipli in Revenue Misc. Case No. 1 of 2006. Opposite party no. 1 - Institute has been put to possession by the State of Orissa over petitioners’ land. Grievance of the petitioners is that they have been dispossessed illegally without following the procedure prescribed by law and the said dispossession is in violation of the mandate of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Land had been taken away from then without initiating the acquisition proceedings. Thus, they are entitled for restoration of posses¬sion of the land. Alternatively they should be paid compensation.

2. Learned counsel for opposite party no.1 Institute has submitted that the Institute is not concerned with the original ownership. The land has been handed over to it by the State of Orissa and there was an agreement between opposite party no. 1 and the State of Orissa for providing free land to establish the Research Institute. Therefore, if the petitioners claim land or compensation thereof it is the State of Orissa which is responsible and not opposite party no.1.

3. Mr. P.K. Khuntia, learned Additional Government Advo¬cate appearing for opposite party no.2 has submitted that the order of the Tahasildar is based on the order passed in consolida¬tion proceedings which had been obtained by misrepresentation and fraud and, therefore it can be avoided and thus, the writ peti¬tion is liable to be dismissed.

4. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The petitioners had approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C) No. 529 of 2005 which was disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 1.5.2006 directing the revenue authorities to consider their case. In pursuance of the said order the Tahasildar has passed an order which is being chal¬lenged in W.P.(C) No. 16878 of 2006. Inspite of that neither the State nor opposite party no.1-Institute is handing over posses¬sion to the petitioners nor taking any step to acquire the land or paying compensation for it.

6. Admitted facts remain that the petitioner had been dispossessed without following any procedure prescribed by law and possession has been handed over by the State to opposite party Institute. The petitioners successfully established their title over the land in dispute before the Consolidation Officer vide judgment and order dated 26.6.1980 passed in Case No. 752/27. It has been declared therein that the petitioner were having valid title over the suit land. The said order of the Consolidation Officer was not challenged by any party, though the Institute - opposite party no.1 was also a party in the consolidation proceedings and it attained finality. Thus, we find no force in the submission of Mr. Khuntia, the learned Addl. Government Advocate that the said order has been obtained by misrepresentation as neither the State nor opposite party no.1 has challenged the same either by filing appeal or revision or by making an application before the same Court to recall the said order as it was obtained by misrepresentation. We are bound to give effect to the same.

7. Admittedly the right to property had earlier been a fundamental right and now it remains as a constitutional and/or as a human right. No person can be deprived of his property with¬out paying the compensation. (Vide Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar etc. etc. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., AIR 1995 SC 142; S.R. Ejaz Vs. T.N. Handloom Weavers’ Cooperative Society Ltd., AIR 2002 SC 1152; DLF Qutab Enclave Complex Educational Charitable Trust Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 1648; Indian Handicrafts Emporium Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 3240; P.T. Muni¬chikkanna Reddy & Ors. Vs. Revamma & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1753; Smt. M. Naga Venkata Lakshmi Vs. Visakhapatnam Municipal Corpn. & Anr, (2007) 8 SCC 798; Aslam Mohd. Merchant Vs. Competent Au