Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C.BEHERA
Bhagabat Basudev, Marfat Benu Parida @ Benudhar Parida @ Benudhar Sahani – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, Conoslidation, Odisha, Bhubaneswar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition challenges consolidation order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding hearing and prior orders. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. writ petition allowed in part; order quashed. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. directives for further proceedings issued. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
Judgment :
This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing the final order dated 18.07.2014 (Annexure-4) passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation, Odisha, Bhubaneswar (O.P.1) in Revision Petition No.910 of 2011.
3. The O.P. Nos.2 to 4 of this writ petition being the petitioners filed Revision Petition No.910 of 2011 under Section 37 (1) of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act, 1972 before the O.P.1 praying for recording the case land i.e. Plot Nos.793 & 794 in total as Ac0.07 decimals in their names instead of Ac0.06 decimals. Because, during the consolidation operation, the total area of the said two plots had become Ac0.06 decimals instead of Ac0.07 decimals, although as per the Sabik R.o.R, the corresponding Sabik plots thereof i.e. sabik Plot No.793 was Ac0.04 decimals and Sabik Plot No.794 was Ac0.03 decimals in total Ac0.0
The court reaffirmed that all parties must be given the opportunity to be heard in legal proceedings to uphold natural justice principles.
A decision made without considering all relevant reports and providing opportunity for objection can undermine fairness and necessitate judicial intervention.
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.
Delay of 10 years in filing a writ petition justified dismissal, emphasizing the importance of timely action in legal proceedings.
Quasi-judicial authorities cannot exercise review powers without explicit statutory authorization, and such actions taken after substantial delays are deemed illegal.
The Collector lacked jurisdiction to cancel the final R.o.R after seven years, as the opposing party did not pursue the required legal remedies under the OS&S Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
