The Consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to record a note of possession or right of easement while adjudicating matters, and a Civil Court decree is not a nullity in a case where the village is under the process of consolidation.

JUDGMENT :

Dipak Misra, J. - Challenge is with regard to the orders passed by the authorities under the Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at different stages in the present writ application by the petitioner herein.

2. The factual backdrop is that the disputed property measuring Ac. 0. 5 decimals situated on Sabik Plot No. 119 corresponding to L. R. Khata No. 52 Plot No. 119, was the 'Kharida Jamabandi Madha-sstwadhikari i. e. intermediary interest of petitioner's father late Krupasindhu Mohapatra. The said land was settled with the petitioner and his name was recorded in the finally published record-of-rights as per the decision rendered in 0. E. A. Case No. 892 of 1965-66. In the record of right, a note was incorporated to the effect that late Gangadiar Sahoo. husband of opp. party No. 4 has a right of way on the aforesaid land. Challenging the said entry, the petitionsr filed Civil Suit No 92/ 253 of 1931/ 75 (I) for daclaring the said entry, as far it related to the right of late Gangadhar Sahoo, as erroneous. In the said suit the opp. party No. 4 was impleaded, after daath of his father, as a defendant The suit was decreed and it was held therein that the opp. party No. 4 had no right of way over the suit land and the petitioner was entitled to a decree for permanent injunction. It has also been averred that the husband of opp. party No. 4 had filed E. A. Lease Case No. 324 of 1976 claiming settlement of disputed land in his favour but the same was dismissed on 16-4-1977. The said Gangadhar Sahoo had also filed O.LR. Case No.2033 of 1976 u/s 9(1) of the O.L.R. Act. but the same was also rejepted by the Revenue Officer, Pipili on 27-1-1979 and on appeal being preferred, it met the similar fate. During the consolidation operation, on the basis of the entry in the record-of-rights, the name of opp. party No. 4 was recorded with note of easementary right in her favour. Being aggrieved by this recording, the petitioner filed Objection Case No. 426/56 of 1980 for deletion of the name of opp. party No. 4. On assessment of evidence, the Assistant Consolidation Officer rejected the objection case against which an appeal was preferred by the petitioner. The appeal did not bring any fruitful result. In revision, the orders were set aside and the matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer for fresh disposal. On remand, the Consolidation Officer allowed the objection in part and directed for recording of easementary right in favour of opp. party No. 4 in respect of 10 links by the side of plot No. 120. Before the Consolidation Officer, both parties produced series of documents. 1 he Consolidation Officer relied on the spot enquiry and came to hold, the opposite party was using the disputed land as passage to the river and it was not clear from the materials on record whether there was any public road from her house to the river. He expressed the view that the L. R. records indicating easementary right over the full plot was erroneous and accordingly, he directed as indicated above. On appeal being preferred, the Deputy Director, Consolidation, affirmed the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. The reason for affirmation as indicated by the appellate authority was his visit to the spot, and further his observation that the opposite party was using the passage to go to the river. In revision, the Commissioner, Consolidation observed that the orders passed by the forums below were justified and did not call for interference by him. He took note of the order passed in O.E. A. Lease Case No. 3 4 of 1976 in O.L.R, Case No. 2033/ 76 and came to hold that from the said orders it could not be held that the orders were in favour of the present petitioner. With regard to the Civil Court decree, he opined that it was a nullity as the village was under the process of consolidation. So holding, he dismissed the revision petition.

3. Sri R. C. Rath, the learned coun