The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between the provisions under Section 36 and 37(1) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972, and the respective scope of revisional authority under each provision.

JUDGMENT

Biswanath Rath, J. - This writ petition involves the following prayer:

'Under these circumstances the petitioners pray that your Lordships would be graciously pleased to admit this writ petition, call for the records from the Courts below and after hearing;

i) issue Rule NISI in the nature of a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ commanding the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Gop-Kakatpur as per Annexure- 5 and that of the Commissioner, Consolidation, Bhubaneswar as per Annexure-7 shall not be quashed;

ii) If the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause the said rule be made absolute against them by quashing Annexures-5 and 7;

iii) Any other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/ directions which would be deemed fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances of the case be also issued/passed;

iv) Cost of the writ application be awarded in favour of the petitioners;

v) Any other relief/reliefs to which the petitioners are found entitled be also passed in their favour; And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.'

2. Undisputedly, the impugned order involved in four sets of revision petitions involving Revision Petition Nos.101 of 1998 to 117 of 1998, appears to have been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act, 1972) being aggrieved by the appellate order involved therein whereas Revision Petition Nos.161 of 1998 to 168 of 1998 appear to be direct applications under Section 37(1) of the Act, 1972.

3. Mr.Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners involved herein in challenge to the common order under Annexure-7 in disposal of both the sets of revision petitions under Section 36 and 37(1) of the Act, 1972 raises a technical ground on the maintainability of the order at Annexue- 7 on the premises that for the nature of revisions, first set of revisions under Section 36 of the Act, 1972 and other set of revisions since proceeded under Section 37(1) of the Act, 1972, the revisional authority should have decided two sets of revisions independently and not together. Mr.Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners again taking to the scope of revision under Section 36 as well as 37(1) of the Act, 1972 attempted to submit that power of the revisional authority under both the provisions are completely distinguishable. Measure of consideration of both the revisions is also completely different. For the provision under Section 36 of the Act, 1972, it is submitted that the revisional authority is required to assess the order of the appellate authority and give its finding undisputedly in exercise of limited exercise of power whereas for the restriction in the provision under Section 37(1) of the Act, 1972, Mr.Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that law has been fairly settled that this provision provides a suo motu power to the revisional authority and in worse case there may be revision under Section 37(1) of the Act, 1972 after final publication of Record-of-Right where the parties did not get scope of objection case and appeal as well as revision under Section- 9, Section-15 and Section-36 of the Act, 1972 respectively. It is in the above premises, Mr.Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order remains unsustainable and, therefore, this Court should interfere in the impugned order and set aside the same.

4. Mr.Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-opposite party referring to paragraph-2.0 at running page 107 of the brief though supported the findings in the revision but, however, unable to dispute the legal provision and the restriction with the revisional authority in such exercise being raised by Mr.Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr.Prabhav Behera, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.D.K.Mishra, and others for opposite party no.2