Quasi-judicial authorities cannot exercise review powers without explicit statutory authorization, and such actions taken after substantial delays are deemed illegal.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. N.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. S.K. Dwivedy, learned counsel for Opposite Parties 4, 5 & 7 to 9 and Mr. U.K. Sahoo, learned ASC for State – Opposite Parties. It is submitted that Opposite Party No.6 died in the meantime.

2. The Petitioners have challenged the orders under Annexure-12 and 13 of the Additional Commissioner of Settlement and Consolidation, Balasore.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the Collector in Misc. Case No.716 of 1935-36 while approving exchange of land in CS Khata No.67, Plot No.176 measuring area Ac.0.84 dec. of village Tentuliapada granted the land in question in favour of Ex-Zamindar and pursuant to the order, an agreement was executed between the State and the Ex-Zamindar on 31st January 1936. On 12th September 1945, the Ex-Zamindar issued “Chirasthayee Rayati Amalanama Patta” in respect of 60 decimals out of Plot No.176 in favour of Sadhu Charan Panda for cultivation on receipt of Salami. Then upon vesting of estate the land was settled in favour of Sadhu Charan Panda and subsequently the settlement officer in Objection Case No.5042/41 passed order in favour of said Sadhu Charan Panda in MS Plot No.206/429 under MS Khata No.75. In 1969, upon publication of MS record, the name of Sadhu Charan Panda was recorded under Stitiban status measuring area Ac.0.62 dec. In the year 1993, Sadhu Charan Panda sold Ac.0.05 dec. of land each in favour of three Petitioners and their names were subsequently mutated in the RoR. During the consolidation proceeding in 1994, Opposite Parties 4 to 9 filed Objection Case No.575/94 under Section 9(3) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘OCH & PFL Act’) being aggrieved with recording of the land in favour of the Petitioners as well as their vendor. The objection case was rejected on 24th February 1996. Thereafter without filing any appeal against the same or regular revision, Opposite Parties 4 to 9 approached the Commissioner of Consolidation under Section 37(1) of OCH & PLF Act in R.P. Case No.63 of 1997. Said revision case was also dismissed on 22nd June 1998. Neither party challenged the same before any higher forum. But after lapse of 14 years, i.e. in the year 2011, Misc. Case No.2 of 2011 was filed before the Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement seeking review of order dated 22nd June 1998. The Additional Commissioner in the said Misc. Case allowed the Review by recalling order dated 22nd June 1998 and then on 9th February 2012 passed a fresh order by allowing the Review petition in favour of Opposite Parties 4 to 9. The said order passed in the Review petition and subsequent order dated 9th February, 2012 are subject matters of challenge before this court.

4. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that entertaining Review petition in absence of any statutory prescription by the Commissioner is beyond his jurisdiction and as such, the orders passed by the Commissioner including consequential order dated 9th February 2012 are liable to be set aside. He further submits that the power under Section 37 to entertain a review by bypassing the provisions of appeal and regular revision under Section 36 is also an illegality on the part of the authority and the impugned orders are liable to be set aside on that score only. In support of his submission, Mr. Sahu relies on the decisions in the case of Gopinath Deb v. Budhia Swain and Others , AIR 1983 Ori 31 , Bharat Sahu v. State of Orissa and Others , 1994 (II) OLR 225, Brundaban Sahoo v. Antaryami Sahoo and Others , 2000 (90) CLT 412 , State of Oriss