The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the OCH & PFL Act, Section 37(2) and Section 9, and the lack of clear appropriate exercise by the Appellate and Revisional Forum.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Writ Petition involves a challenge to the order passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation, Bhubaneswar involving Revision Case No.82 of 2004.

2. Background involving the case is that the case under Section 37(2) of the OCH & PFL Act initiated by the Petitioner was remanded to the Consolidation Officer, Puri with direction for undertaking appropriate exercise for consideration of the case of the Petitioner in the consolidation operation going on there. It appears, based on such order, the Consolidation Officer undertook an exercise under Section 9 of the OCH & PFL Act and finally, vide order dated 22.4.2002 directed recording in favour of the Petitioner the land extending Ac.0.95 instead of Ac.0.82. An appeal being filed, the Appellate Authority interfered with the impugned order on two premises. Firstly, there was no challenge to the previous settlement recording and as such, the Consolidation Officer should have acted on the unchallenged Record of Right. The second ground of interference by the Appellate Authority being based on disposal of an O.E.A. Proceeding, vide O.E.A.No.1068/64. Mr.Mishra, learned counsel alleged, the Revisional Authority also accepted the findings of the Appellate Authority and thereby confirmed the order of the Appellate Authority in taking out the order of the Consolidation Officer.

3. Taking this Court to the observation in the appellate order, an attempt is made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner to justify that there was no recording to the effect that disclosure on particular land involving such proceeding. Further it is alleged, this O.E.A. Proceeding involved a private plot. In the circumstance, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that for there is no clear disclosure through the O.E.A. order, sufficient opportunity should have been provided to the Parties to satisfy their further case instead of unreasoned and unexplained order passed by the Appellate Authority. Same allegation is made involving the conduct of the Revisional Authority. In the circumstance, Mr.Mishra, learned counsel prays this Court interfering with both the orders and remitting the matter to the appellate stage for at least a fair trial.

4. In spite of sufficiency of notice and appearance of a set of Counsel, nobody appeared on behalf of O.Ps.5 to 7.

5. Mr.S.P.Panda, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for O.Ps.1 to 4, however, attempted to justify the appellate order as well as the revisional order.

6. Considering the rival contentions of the Parties and on perusal of the order of the Consolidation Officer, this Court finds, the Consolidation Officer in giving his conclusion at Page-23 of the Brief has come to observe as follows :-

“There is no dispute on record position but only dispute is on recording of area. On comparison and analysis. It is seen that suit plot 1814 ac.0.82 of petitioner and Plot 1813 Ac.1.60 O.Ps. situates in field map adjoining to each other. The petitioner’s plot 1814 Ac.0.82 corresponds to 1923-24 Plot 1819 Ac.0.80, 1977-78 Plot 1814 Ac.0.82.So also the O.Ps. Plot 1813 + 841 Ac.0.06 + 842 Ac.0.10 = 3 Plots Ac.1.24 which further corresponds to 1923-24 Plot 1817 Ac.0.23 + 1818 Ac.1.34 = 2 Plots Ac.1.57. the consolidation position is same as per 1977

78. In comparison between 1977-78 and 1910-11 petitioner’s Plot Ac.0.95 – Ac.0.82 = Less Ac.0.13 whereas in O.Ps. Case Ac.1.60 -Ac.1.24 = excess recorded than 1910-11. The point of dispute and wrong recording in area cause only due to one plot created in 1910-11 Map between Plot 829 and 840, but the same Plot kept without any number i.e., The question is whether there is any number for this plot, whether the area for this including in Plot 829 or 840. On total verification, comparison super imposition and analysis, it is found that area of 1910-11 Plot 840 in subsequent steps has gone raising whereas the petitioner’s area for Pot 840 shows shortage on taking passing on “Acre comes” for 1910-11 Plot 829 + = total comes