The main legal point established in the judgment is that a revision petition filed under Section 37(1) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972, must be filed within a reasonable period, and a seven-year delay is not considered reasonable.

JUDGMENT :

Biswanath Rath, J.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order under Annexure-7 to this petition passed by the Commissioner Consolidation, Orissa in Consolidation Revision Case Nos.1743/93 to 1747/93 filed under Section 37(1) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972.

2. In assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the revision petition was filed accompanying an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act vide Annexure-6 seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision after seven years on the ground that the private opposite parties with malafide and capricious intentions influencing the local authorities have got the suit land illegally and erroneously recorded their names alone excluding the names of the petitioners. The order has been obtained behind back of the petitioners. The revisional authority on illegal appreciation of the explanation on delay in filing the revision rejected the revision on the premises of limitation alone and thus learned counsel for the petitioners sought for interference of this Court in the impugned order and thereby by setting aside the impugned order directing the revisional authority to decide the matter on merit.

3. Learned counsel for the private opposite party No.1 and the State Counsel in one tone submitted that for the admitted delay of more than seven decades in filing the revision, the revisional authority did no wrong in dismissing the revision on the ground of limitation and further, for the reasons assigned therein, there is no scope to interfere in the impugned order.

4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, the R.P. Cases under Section 37(1) of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act, 1972 were filed in the year 1993 making therein the allegation that there has been illegal exclusion of the petitioners’ name from the land records. The revisional Court in considering the rival contentions observes that originally the disputed properties were recorded in the name of Bidyadhar Sahoo S/o-Late Shyam Sahoo in stitiban status in the year 1912. There was severance joint status in the family in the year 1965 but the properties remained in jointness without any partition of the land through metes and bounds and the petitioners claimed that they have come to know about the wrong recordings only after filing of the T.S. No.172/90 by the opposite parties.

Looking to the claim of the opposite party No.8 therein, the revisional Court observed that the revision have been filed challenging the settlement record as well as the consolidation records and the same was finally published in the year 1986. There is a delay of almost seven years. The original authority also observes that even though the cases under Section 9(3) of the Act were filed but no appeal has been preferred involving the orders in the 9(3) proceedings. The revisional authority finally concluded the matter holding that the gift deed has been challenged after 73 years and the revisions have been filed after seven years. There is no proper explanation on delay.

5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and further for the observations made by the revisional Court recorded hereinabove, this Court finds admittedly the revision was preferred after a long laps of seven years. This Court considering the limitation in preferring the revision under Section 37(1) of the Act and following the decisions in the case in between Laxman Konda vs. State of Orissa & others as reported in 72(1991) CLT 49, Union of India & others vrs. Kishorilal Bablani as reported in AIR 1999 SC 517, a judgment of this Court passed in W.P. (C) No.3651/2002 (Chaitanya Das & others vrs. Bibhuti Charan Das & others) on 14.12.2016, Laxminarayan Sahu vrs. State of Orissa & others as reported in 1991(I) OLR 82 (FB), Labanyabati Devi & others vrs. Member, Board of Revenue & others as reported in 1993(II) OLR 365 and lastly Santosh Kumar Shi