JUDGMENT

BISWANATH RATH,J. - This writ petition is filed assailing the impugned order passed by the opposite party no.6 under Annexure-10.

2. Short background involved in the case is that the disputed land was recorded in favour of Krushna Das, Nuki Das and Nalu Das under Khata No.14, Plot No.93 measuring an area of Ac.0.64 decimals with note of possession in favour of one Krushna Das as per the record-of-right published on 10.3.1998 under Annexure- 1. In 1927, the record-of-right of the disputed land along with other land stood recorded under Khata No.11, Plot No.77 measuring an area of Ac.0.66 decimals vide Annexure-2 indicating in the remark column, the property under exclusive possession of Krushna Das. After vesting of the Estate, tenancy ledger was prepared in respect of the disputed land Ac.0.66 decimals in Tauzi No. 796 and Khata No.11 vide Annexure-4 in favor of Sambhu Das and Kandarpa Das, both sons of Krushna Das, who went on paying rent and obtained receipts vide Annexure-6 series. In the Major Settlement, record-of-right was published in the year 1988 under Annexure-7 and the said disputed land stood recorded in the name of grandsons of Krushna Das under Plot No.56. In the meantime, in the consolidation proceeding, the disputed land stood recorded in favour of the writ petitioner. Consequently, land register was also prepared and published. Challenging this record in a consolidation proceeding, opposite party no.1’s father Baidhar Das filed Objection Case No.406 of 1992 claiming 50% share over the disputed land. Claim was rejected by the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 31.7.1993 vide Annexure-8. There was no appeal under Section 12 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 challenging the above order and as a result, the order passed in the Objection Case reached finality. It is alleged that after a gap of at last 7 years, the private opposite parties filed Revision Case No.563 of 2001 refuting the claim of their 50% share in the disputed land. The Commissioner allowed the revision by order dated 27.8.2002 by setting aside the order passed in the objection Case No.406 of 1992, as appearing at Annexure-10, resulting the present writ.

3. Learned counsel for the present petitioners challenged the impugned order firstly on the ground of limitation for having filed the revision after almost 8 years and secondly the maintainability of the Revision for no challenge to the order passed in the Objection Case No.406 of 1992, it is argued that the private opposite parties were having statutory remedy by way of appeal and revision (under Section 36 of the Act) challenging the order passed in the objection Case No.406 of 1992 in absence of which the private opposite parties were stopped from filing the revision under Section 37(1) of the Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the provisions contained in Section 57 of the Consolidation Act read with Section 3 of the Limitation Act contended that there is no prescribed period of limitation for filing the revision which does not mean that the revision can be filed at any stage. Referring to the decisions in cases of Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil and Ors. v. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and Ors, 2009 AIR SCW 6305, Labanyabati Devi and others v. Member, Board of Revenue and others, 1993 (II) OLR- 365 and in the case of Sri Laxman Kanda v. State of Orissa and others, 1991 (II) OLR-50, learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to impress the Court that the petitioners have no case from the angle of limitation also.

5. In his opposition, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.1 and 3 though not disputed the fact in filing of the revision but pointed out that for the decision of this Court in the Cases of Nikunja Kishore Das and Ors. v. Consolidation Officer and Anr., 66 (1988) CLT-182, Dhadi Parida (after him and) Sundari Parida and Ors. v. The Commissioner of Consolidation and Ors, 2002 (II) OLR