The court affirmed that authorities possess inherent jurisdiction to revoke fraudulent orders even in the absence of specific statutory provisions for review.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. All the writ petitions are disposed of by the following judgment since a common question is involved.

2. In the above noted cases, the challenge is with regard to the orders in revision proceedings vis-a-vis the subject matter in question relatable to the plots included in the preparation of new consolidation Khata and plots and deductions therefrom and decisions not to recall the orders obtained by fraudulent means and also to cancel the consolidation RoRs issued in favour of the opposite parties with such other consequential directions in that regard.

3. The facts of each case are not separately discussed and narrated for the sake of brevity but reference of one in W.P.(C) No. 7703 of 2017 would suffice the purpose. The petitioner therein like others has challenged the order passed in Misc. Case No. 9 of 2015 by learned Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur arising out of the Consolidation Revision Case No. 195 of 2013 filed under Section 37 (1) of the Orissa Consolidation of the Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘OCH & PFL Act’).Not only that, the challenge at the behest of the petitioner is also connected to the order dated 10^th April, 2013 in the revision proceeding itself. The petitioner pleads for cancellation of the consolidation RoRs and corrections effected in respect of the plots of consolidation Khata and preparation of new consolidation RoRs recorded in the name of one Trinath Sahu pursuant to the order dated 19^th September, 2014 in Revenue Misc. Case No. 1013 of 2014. Further the challenge is to the orders passed in terms of Section 8-A of the OLR Act. The petitioner questions the orders in remand revision proceedings. In fact, all such orders towards correction of RoRs and preparation of new ones is pleaded by the petitioner, since there has been massive fraud and illegality committed and perpetuated in violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory law.

4. Briefly the facts of the cases are as follows. As it is alleged, someone impersonating himself as Trinath Sahu son of Krupasindhu Sahu, being the only legal heir, filed an application under Section 37 (1) OCH & PFL Act in the year 2013 for exchange of land before learned Additional Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement, Sambalpur registered as Consolidation Revision Case No. 195 of 2013 and therein, the request was for deduction and inclusion of consolidation plots in exchange and managed to obtain an order, whereafter, Revenue Misc. Case No. 1013 of 2014 was filed and as a consequence, new and separate RoRs were prepared. In the year 2014, said person named Trinath Sahu filed an application under Section 8-A of the OLR Act for conversion of the plot in question to Gharabari which was registered as OLR Case No. 236 of 2014 and it was followed by a direction to deposit the amount for such conversion and accordingly, such deposit was made and the conversion of the kisam of the land was allotted and it was for and in respect of consolidation plot Nos. 432 & 439 situate under Consolidation Khata No. 228/647 of the concerned Mouza. The above developments, according to the petitioner, were at the instance of a non-existent person and not by the real recorded tenant. In the meanwhile, opposite party No.3 sold the entire Chaka land to the named opposite parties through registered sale deeds whereafter on 21^st January, 2015, the purchasers filed revisions, as a result of which, necessary orders were passed for correction and preparation o