The court ruled that a successive writ petition concerning the same issue cannot be maintained after a prior dismissal for non-prosecution and is barred by delay.

JUDGMENT :

Biswanath Rath, J.

This is a writ petition involving a challenge to the order dated 14.03.1995 passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation, Bhubaneswar in Consolidation Revision Case Nos.1942 and 1943 of 1984 moved at the instance of private opposite parties vide Annexure-16 to the writ petition.

2. Short recital of the case is that the private opposite parties filed objection case under Section 9(3) of the Odisha Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter called herein as “OCH & PFL Act”) praying therein to record the property involved therein in their name. The Consolidation Officer in disposal of the proceeding was pleased to record the disputed land in the name of the opposite parties, the applicants therein. When the matter stood thus, petitioners herein filed two objection cases bearing Objection Case No.538 of 1983 and Objection Case No.593 of 1983. The Assistant Consolidation Officer considered the objections under Section 15 of the OCH & PFL Act and directed to record the same land in the name of the petitioners herein. Above orders were challenged by the opposite party no.1 in contest in Revision Case No. 1942 before the Commissioner, Consolidation. The opposite party no.4 being petitioner filed another revision bearing Revision Case No.1943 of 1984. Both the matters were heard together and the Commissioner of Consolidation finally held that for the existence of order of Orissa Estate Abolition Authority functioning as Tahasildar vide O.E.A. Misc. Case No.42 of 1969-70 remain valid and accordingly while holding that revision petitioners i.e. opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.4 able to satisfy their occupancy right over the disputed land consequently directed for recording the name of opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.4 involving the disputed land. This order is available at Annexure-16 and impugned herein.

3. The case of the petitioners in their challenge to the impugned order at Annexure-16, as claimed in the writ petition and submitted during course of hearing is that the husband of the opposite party no.1 Surendranath Naik was the ex-intermediary and he executed sale deed dated 21.08.1959 in favour of his wife Ashamani Devi, the opposite party no.1. This sale deed had the recital that Surendranath acquired occupancy right over the property which demand is claimed to have been considered and rejected by this High Court in the disposal of Second Appeal No.394 of 1950 appearing at Annexure-1. Accordingly, the petitioner claimed that sale deed indicates herein is a void one. Further claim of the petitioners is that Makadami Village of Gadasitha contained Ac.37.44 decimals of Nijchas lands. The Makadami was abolished under provisions of O.E.A. Act on 11.04.1959 almost all the Nijchas lands were under the cultivating possession of Bhag Tenants, the petitioners and others. It is just after abolition of ex- intermediary husband of opposite party no.1 as uncle of opposite party no.2 and father-in-law of opposite party no.4 transferred the disputed land by R.S.D. dated 21.08.1959 measuring Ac.9.39 -2./3^rd decimals of land to his wife. Subsequently, the opposite party no.1 also obtained ekapadia noting therein entry in the name of his son-in-law, the opposite party no.4 measuring Ac.3.26 decimals of Nijchas lands. For the remaining land Ac.24.78 decimals and other lands measuring Ac.0.94 decimals , the ex-intermediary filed O.E.A.No.609 o