The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the sale of disputed land and the possession of the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

Biswanath Rath, J. - This writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of the orders under Annexures-1 & 2 passed by the authorities under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972.

2. Short background involved in the case is that the disputed land pertains to Major Settlement 303 Ac.0.27 and 304 Ac.0.19 of Mouza Muladihi. The case land originally belongs to one Kanhu Jena who died leaving behind his two sons namely Bhaskar (the father of the O.P. no.2) and Bhagirathi. In an amicable settlement, the disputed land was allotted to Bhaskar Jena. On 11.03.1980, Bhaskar Jena entered into an agreement with the petitioner (Purna Chandra Dash) to sell the disputed land and as a consequence, a written stamp-paper agreement was executed. Subsequently on 11.06.1982 Bhaskar executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner and delivered the possession of land in question. Thus the petitioner became the full owner and in possession of the disputed land. It is further case of the petitioner that consequent upon the sale deed, the petitioner applied for mutation of the purchased land and the mutation was allowed vide Mutation Case No.2991 of 1984 and mutated R.O.R. of Khata No.186/28 was also issued in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner goes on regularly paying the rent and the Consolidation L.R. parcha was also prepared in the name of the petitioner considering his title and possession over the disputed land. While the matter stood thus, the opposite party no.1 filed Title Suit No.7/83-I against Bhaskar claiming that Bhaskar has entered into an agreement with him on 17.11.1981. Bhaskar appeared in the said suit filing written statement specifically stating about the agreement in favour of the petitioner executed on 11.03.1980 and subsequently, execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 11.06.1982. Besides in the written statement Bhaskar has also a clear statement to have cancelled the agreement favouring the opposite party no.1 by a registered document dated 2.12.1981 on the premises that the agreement involving the opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.1 was obtained fraudulently. However, subsequently, the opposite party no.1 in collusion with Bhaskar filed a compromise petition and a compromise decree was arrived in the suit whereafter the opposite party no.1 filed an Execution Case No.57/85. Coming to know of which, the petitioner himself added as a party to the execution proceeding and challenged the decree on the premises that the decree involving opposite party nos.1 & 2 has been obtained fraudulently and that there has been no document executed favouring the opposite party no.1. In the meantime, the opposite party no.1 Upendra Prasad Nayak filed Objection Case No.211/99, which being rejected by the Consolidation Officer, the opposite party no.1 filed Appeal vide Appeal No.16/2001, which was illegally allowed. Being aggrieved by the appeal order the petitioner preferred Revision bearing Revision Case No.376 of 2001 on the file of Addl. Commissioner of Consolidation, which was dismissed by the revisional authority resulting filing of the present writ petition.

3. On the premises of specific averments Shri D.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner taking aid of the stand taken by Bhaskar in the written statement involving Title Suit No.7/83-I, contended that the appellate court as well as the revisional court have all failed in appreciating the materials available through the written statement and thereby have all arrived at the wrong and illegal impugned order.

4. Shri Mishra, also alleged that both the appellate and revisional authority have also failed in appreciating the materials and evidence available on record, the petitioner's document vide Ext.G, a decree involving O.S. No.104 of 1985, was also not appreciated in its proper spirit. Learned counsel for the petitioner further alleged that the order of the appellate authority also perverse b