A decision made without considering all relevant reports and providing opportunity for objection can undermine fairness and necessitate judicial intervention.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the Petitioners praying for quashing the impugned order dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure-7) passed in Consolidation Revision No.113 of 2023 by the Land Reforms Commissioner-cum-Commissioner Consolidation and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack (O.P. No.2).

2. The case of the Petitioners is that, the Petitioners are the owners of non-consolidable Plot No.451 under Khata No.21, Ac.0.23 dec. in Mouza Nalakani under Erasama Tahasil and the R.o.R. of the same has been published in their names by the Consolidation Authorities.

The O.P. Nos.5 to 8 are the owners of Plot No.450 Ac.0.27 dec. in Mouza Nalakani under Erasama Tahasil, which is adjacent to Plot No.451. They (Petitioners) are in possession over their Ac.0.23 dec. of Plot No.451 according to the area indicated in the R.o.R, but, in the map, two decimals area of their Plot No.451 has been reduced. The said reduced area of their Plot No.451 in the map has been erroneously mixed with the map area of Plot No.450 of the O.P. Nos.5 to 8.

For which, the Petitioners filed revision vide Consolidation Revision No.113 of 2023 under Section 37 (1) of the OCH and PFL Act, 1972 against the O.Ps praying for correction of the map area of their Plot No.451, because, they (Petitioners) are in possession over the recorded area i.e. Ac.0.23 dec. of their Plot No.451, but, only in the map, two decimals area thereof has been reduced and the same has been mixed with the map area of Plot No.450.

3. Heard from the learned counsel for the Petitioners, the learned counsel for the O.P. Nos.5 to 8 and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

4. It is the case of the Petitioners that, during the pendency of Revision No.113 of 2023, the O.P. No.2 had called for reports from the Tahasildar, Erasama and Sub-Collector, Jagatsinghpur for clarification i.e. whether the map area of Plot No.451 of the Petitioners has been reduced and the said reduced area in the map has been mixed in the map area of Plot No.450 or not?

Accordingly, both i.e. the Tahasildar, Erasama and Sub-

Collector, Jagatsinghpur had submitted their reports about the same stating that, in fact, the map area of Plot No.451 has been reduced and the said reduced area has been mixed in the map area of Plot No.450, but, the O.P. No.2 passed the impugned order vide Annexure-7 in dismissing the Consolidation Revision No.113 of 2023 of the Petitioners without taking the reports of the Tahasildar, Erasama and Sub-Collector, Jagatsinghpur into account, though, the same were available in the record before passing the impugned order (Annexure-7).

So, according to the learned counsel for the Petitioners, had the report of the Tahasildar, Erasama and Sub-Collector, Jagatsinghpur been taken into account by the O.P. No.2, the revision of the Petitioners would not have been dismissed by the O.P. No.2.

To which, the learned counsel for the O.P. Nos.5 to 8 objected contending that, they (O.P. Nos.5 to 8) are not at all aware about any report of the Tahasildar, Erasama and Sub- Collector, Jagatsinghpur, because, the copy of the said reports were not supplied to them (O.P. Nos.5 to 8). If the said reports would have been supplied to them, then, they could have gotten opportunities to object the same.

5. Under the above circumstances, perusal of the reports of the Tahasildar, Erasama and Sub-Collector, Jagatsinghpur was necessary for the just decision of the revision by the O.P. No.2 prior to passing the impugned order on dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure-7), but, the O.P. No.2