The main legal point established in the judgment is that a Revision under Section 37(1) cannot be entertained after at least 15 years and in the availability of a Revision under Section 36, thereby declaring the impugned order as bad and upholding the order of the appellate authority.

JUDGMENT :

Biswanath Rath, J.

This writ petition involves a challenge to the quashing of orders under Annexures-1 and 2 and thereby affirming the order under Annexure-3.

2. Factual background involved in the case is that all the proceedings involved herein have been exercised by the competent authority under the provision of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (for short “The Act, 1972”). These proceedings have also a bearing in the W.P.(C).Nos.4603, 4604, 4605, 4606 and 4608 all are of 2016 involving similar set of objection cases from very beginning. Fact reveals, initially 5 objection cases i.e. Objection Case Nos.2512, 1511, 2395, 2475 and 2629 all of 1981 were filed under Section 9 (3) of the Act, 1972 as seen from Annexure-2 involving the writ petition. Except one objection case i.e. Objection Case No.2395 filed by one Kasinath was partly allowed, all others were rejected. As a consequence of disposal of all 5 objection cases with allowing one objection case, 5 appeals under Section 12 of the Act, 1972 were filed. All the 4 appeals were allowed. This case however involves Appeal Case No.522 of 1981 arising out of Objection Case No.2511 of 1981 as appearing in Annexure-3 to the case at hand. Appeal vide Annexure-3 was allowed by judgment of the appellate authority also in a common judgment involving other 4 appeals i.e. Appeal Case Nos.522, 523, 524 and 525 again all are of 1981. One of the appeal being partly allowed against one of the objection case, as clearly borne in Annexre-3, judgment of appellate Court dated 30th January, it is reported that as a consequence of the same, there has been consequential preparation of record-of-right in favour of the petitioner herein. Consequential orders for correction in record-of-right were also passed in the other 4 items but the dispute involved in other 4 writs separately disposed of. It is pleaded that there has been no Revision against all these Appeal orders as provided under Section 36 of the Act, 1972. On the other hand almost after 13 years, 36 number of villagers filed one consolidation revision appears to be a Revision under Section 37(1) of the Act, 1972 before the Commissioner, Consolidation, Bhubaneswar numbered as Revision Petition No.604 of 1995. It is stated here that there is one Revision involving all Appeal orders involving same prayer involving the properties involved in numbers of objection cases but, however, without assailing the Appeal orders already involved therein under Section 12 of the Act, 1972. The Revision was disposed of involving the petitioners in each of the writ petitions involved in each of the objection cases and appears to have been disposed of by the judgment of the Commissioner dated 14th July, 2015 vide Annexure-1 thereby setting aside all the Appeal orders and further also the order of the Consolidation Officer passed in the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act, 1972. In the disposal of the Revision, the Revisional authority directed all lands except Ac.0.26 decimals out of Ac.40.73 decimals shall stand recorded in the name of Government vide Annexure-1. This Court from the order-sheet finds on entertaining the writ petition, notice was issued to all the opposite parties including 36 villagers preferring the Revision. Even though notice has been served on each of them, none has appeared here to contest the proceeding. Thus, this matter is decided on contest of petitioner involving each writ petition and the State, who in an attempt defend the Revisional order. The Revisional order impugned herein has been assailed firstly on the ground of limitation for the Revision being filed after 13 years. Secondly on the premises that since the dispute has been settled under the provision of Section 12 of the Act, 1972, in absence of revision under Section 36 of the Act, 1972 a proceeding under Section 37 of the Act, 1972 was per se not maintainable, since it is at the instance of private parties. Thi