A revision under Section 15(b) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act can be entertained beyond one year if it meets the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J -

1. Both the writ petitions are clubbed together for a common disposal.

2. Instant writ petitions are at the behest of the petitioner challenging the correctness, legality and judicial propriety of the impugned orders as per Annexures-1 and 2 passed in connection with Revision Petition No.363 of 2013 and Revision Petition No.1556 of 2014 purportedly in exercise of powers under Section 15(b) of Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) on the grounds inter alia that the same are untenable in law and hence, liable to be interfered with and set aside with consequential directions issued in that regard.

3. In fact, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.16405 of 2018 challenging the decision in the revisions, however, it stands confined to the impugned order in Revision Petition No.363 of 2013, whereas, W.P.(C) No.13334 of 2024 is related to the dismissal of Revision Petition No.1556 of 2014. So, to say, the petitioner is aggrieved by the remand of the revision by order dated 19^th June, 2013 in Revision Petition No.363 of 2013 for inquiry and correction of the Mutation RoR by a decision of the learned Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar. The petitioner is equally affected by such decision of the Revisional Authority in dismissing the other proceeding i.e. Revision Petition No.1556 of 2014 and hence, therefore, the writ petitions are filed.

4. Briefly stated, the facts pleaded on record from the side of the petitioner are as follows. It is stated that the case land appertains to Sabik Khata No.197 and Plot Nos. 945 and 946 correspond to Mutation Khata No.474/4428, Plot Nos. 1410 and 1412 measuring Ac.0.220 decimal and Ac.0.110 decimal and further correspond to Hal Khata No.205 and Plot Nos.1410 and 1412 and as per Sabik Settlement Khata No.197, the same stood recorded in the names of one Bula Jena and Muli Jena but the latter died issueless in the state of jointness and thus, the former alone succeeded the interest thereof. It is further pleaded that as per the record of rights, there was an entry of oral mortgage in the remarks column, which had no legal force and said Bula Jena exercising absolute ownership and possession over the plots in question, sold the same to one Maheswar Barik, namely, predecessor of the petitioner and opposite party Nos.7 to 9 through a sale deed (RSD No.1579) dated 14^th March, 1952 but the record could not be corrected in Hal settlement of 1973, on the basis of such purchase, hence, the case land was allowed to be recorded in favour of the successors of the Sabik recorded tenants, namely, Dhukhishyam, Trilochan and Rabindranath, who are the predecessors of opposite party Nos. 3(a) to (e) to 6 but, despite such record of right, the purchaser, namely, Maheswar Barik continued to physically possess the same during his life time and after his death, the petitioner and opposite party Nos.7 to 9 and while matter stood thus, opposite party No.6 somehow by fraud and misrepresentation managed to obtain a registered Power of Attorney from the other heirs of late Maheswar Barik without their knowledge, as per and in terms of which, he was not authorized to transfer but was to manage the property, however, when failed, the original Power of Attorney was returned to the executants and was finally, cancelled by a deed dated 23^rd May, 2012. It is also pleaded that in spite of such deed of cancellation, opposite party No.6 behind the back of the executants alienated the case land by a sale deed dated 11^th February, 2013 in favour of his wife and another, namely, opposite party Nos.10 and 11 respectively. It is pleaded that th