The court ruled that a consolidation authority must adjudicate on merits and cannot delegate responsibilities or issue remands, ensuring statutory powers are exercised properly.

ORDER :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Heard Mr. Lenka and Mr. Bhokta, learned counsels appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State opposite parties.

2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the correctness of the impugned order under Annexure-10 and consequential orders dated 20^th May, 2011 and 29^th June, 2010 under Annexures-6 and 8 in Mutation Case No.1623 of 2008 and Mutation Appeal No.71 of 2010 respectively and further to direct opposite party No.2 to correct the RoR and to receive the arrear rent from them in respect of the case land on the grounds stated.

3. Mr. Lenka, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners approached the learned Commissioner, Consolidation Settlement, Bhubaneswar, Odisha in Revision Petition Case No.109 of 2004 in terms of Section 15 (b) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Act’) which was disposed of by order dated 9^th September, 2005 followed by order dated 24th September, 2007 with a direction to opposite party No.2 to examine the correctness of the documents filed by them and to conduct field enquiry and thereafter to decide the matter as per law. It is further submitted that such an order of the learned Commissioner, Consolidation Settlement, Bhubaneswar, Odisha is not legally tenable as he could not have exercised the jurisdiction in such manner with a remand for a field enquiry to be held by opposite party No.2 instead of disposing of the revision on merit. In support of such argument, Mr. Lenka, leaned counsel for the petitioners relies on the decision of this Court in Sarat Chandra Sahu Vrs. Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Orissa Cuttack 82 (1996) CLT 321 to further contend that the learned Commissioner, Consolidation Settlement, Bhubaneswar, Odisha could not have passed the impugned order under Annexure-8. Mr. Lenka, learned counsel relies on another decision in Smt. Bijaya Chatterjee Vrs. Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Orissa and others 2000 (II) OLR 349, wherein, the ratio decided in Sarat Chandra Sahu has been approved of with the conclusion that the revision cannot suffer a remand for a decision by learned Tahasildar for orders. Lastly, Mr. Lenka, learned counsel relies one more decision in the case of Anantadan Suna and others Vrs. Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Berhampur and others 2021 (I) OLR 871 with the submission that such a decision by learned Commissioner, Consolidation Settlement, Bhubaneswar, Odisha under Annexure-10 is not legally sustainable as he does not have the power to delegate the authority to exercise it by opposite party No.2.

4. In reply and response to the above, Mr. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State submits that the learned Commissioner, Consolidation Settlement, Bhubaneswar, Odisha has merely directed for an enquiry to be carried out by opposite party No.2 to examine the correctness of the documents relied upon by the petitioners with the contention that it is not delegation of powers to opposite party No.2, rather, disposal of the revision for an enquiry by the said authority since the petitioners claim to be based on documents, such as, ‘Ekpadia’ etc., and hence, therefore, the impugned order under Annexure-10 is well justified and not to be interfered with and set aside.

5. Mr. Lenka, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that ‘Jamabandi’ was prepared and rent was received from predecessor- in-interest of the petitioners, however, the case land was ultimately settled with the Government post-vesting, as a result of which, the revision was filed before learned Commissioner, Consolidation Se