The revisional authority can exercise powers to rectify injustices despite delays, particularly in cases of documented fraud and jurisdictional excesses under the Orissa Estate Abolition Act.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. MOHAPATRA, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed questioning the legality, validity and propriety of order dated 26^th April, 2008 passed in O.E.A. Revision No.52 of 1999 (Annexure-7) by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack where under order dated 14^th November, 1979 (Annexure-1) passed by the O.E.A. Collector-cum-Tahasildar, Kujanga in O.E.A. Misc. Case No.15 of 1979 has been set aside by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack.

2. Upon a careful examination of the impugner order dated 26th April, 2008 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack, it is seen that the revision petition was initially dismissed for default on 24^th August, 2002 and thereafter the same was restored by order dated 15^th September, 2006. The said order further reveals that after the OEA Revision Case was dismissed for default, the original case record of OEA Misc. Case No.15 of 1979 was returned to the office of the Tahasildar, Kujang vide Memo No.1344 dated 9^th October, 2002 and the same was received on 21^st October 2002 by the Nazir of Kujang Tahasil.

3. However, after restoration of the O.E.A. Misc. Case No.15 of 1979, the original record was again called for from the office of Tahasil, Kujang. The Tahasildar, Kujang vide letter dated 14^th November, 2007, reported that the original case record of the above noted case is not traceable in his office. When reminders were given to send the original record of the above noted O.E.A. Misc. Case, the Tahasildar, Kujang reiterated the previous reply and took a stand that the original records are not traceable in his office.

4. Considering the nature of allegation, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack should have taken stern action against the official due to whose negligence the record was misplaced and later on could not be traced out. However, the order-sheet does not reveal as to what action was taken by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack being the highest revenue authority of the State in the matter of misplacement of record in the office of the Tahasildar, Kujang. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court now proceeds to adjudicate the writ petition filed by the Petitioner challenging the impugned order passed by the leaned Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack.

5. The factual background of the case, in brief, is that the RoR of village Bijayachandrapur (now coming under Paradeep Town) under Kujang Tahasil was published in the year 1929-30, Khata No.59 of the said village consisting of area measuring Ac.159.58 of land recorded as ‘Anabadi’ in favour of the Ex-estate known as Burdhaman Estate. The aforesaid Khata No.59 consists of large number of plots. The said Ex- estate, namely Burdhaman Estate had vested in the State of Odisha in the year 1951.

6. After the Orissa Estate Abolition Act came into force in the year 1951, no “Ekpadia” was submitted by ex-Intermediary in respect of the case land which is a part of Khata No.59 of village Bijayachandapur. Therefore, it is presumed that the ex-Intermediary had not settled, leased out or transferred any portion of the land under Khata No.59 of vi