Sale deeds declared void for violating land consolidation laws, stressing the necessity of procedural due process in adjudicatory proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Mohapatra, J.

W.A. No.186 of 2010

1. By filing the above noted Writ Appeal, the Appellant seeks to challenge the judgment dated 11^th May, 2010 passed by the learned Single judge of this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.2682 of 2010, thereby dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner and refusing to interfere with the order dated 22^nd October, 2009 passed in Misc. Case No.44 of 2007 by the Collector, Puri under Section 35(2) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation Land Act, 1972 (in short ‘OCH & PFL Act, 1972).

2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, as culled out from the Writ Petition is that the property under Consolidation Khata No.162 bearing Plot No.444, measuring an area of Ac1.62 decimals and Consolidation Khata No.166 bearing Plot No.404, measuring an area of Ac1.84 decimals in Mouza-Patasundarpur under Kakatpur P.S. of Puri district. Initially the subject matter of dispute in this case, was recorded jointly on the name of Respondent No.1 (Opposite Party No.1) and his brother, in stitiban status. The Kisam of the land was recorded as ‘Ghanapaka and Majhipadia’ which according to the Appellant is not amenable to consolidation. However, the same was included in the Chaka without proper verification with regard to the status and condition of the land.

3. It is further stated in the writ petition that Opposite Party No.1 for his legal necessity transferred his 50% interest/share in Plot No.444, measuring Ac 0.81dec. and 30% in Plot No.404 measuring Ac 0.61 dec. on 26^th November, 2005 vide RSD No.2045, measuring a total area of Ac 1.42 decimal to the Petitioner, who happens to be a contiguous Chaka owner. Further on 26^th November 2005, the Opposite Party No.1 sold the other chunk of the land to another person, namely, Rama Chandra Parida and his brother, who are Petitioners in the connected writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.2682 of 2010. Pursuant to said transfer, the land has been measured and inspected by the Local Amin in presence of the vendor, vendee and other co-sharers, who have not objected to such transfer. Thereafter, the Tahasildar allowed the mutation and accordingly mutation ROR has been issued in favour of the Petitioner.

4. In the year 2007, due to a rift amongst the villagers due to political rivalry, there was a dissension between the Opposite Party No.1 and the Petitioner. Opposite Party No.1 being instigated by some local people who were hostile to the Petitioner and wanted that the Petitioner is harassed and humiliated in public, had filed a Civil Suit vide C.S. No.92 of 2007 before the Civil Judge (S.D.), Nimapara for declaration of his right, title and interest and for confirmation of possession in respect of the above described land and further to declare that the two Registered Instruments are not Sale Deeds but Mortgage Deeds. In the said suit, Written Statement (W.S.) has been field by the defendant-Petitioner.

5. While this was so, Opposite Party No.1 filed an application under Section 35(2) of OCH & PFL Act bearing Misc. Case No.44 of 2007 before the Collector, Puri (Opposite Party No.2). The Petitioner has further alleged in the writ petition that the said application of the Petitioner has been disposed of by the Collector, Puri without affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. To substantiate his case, Petitioner has provided a list of dates. According to the said list of dates, the application under Section35 (2) of the OCH & PFL Act was filed on 8^th November, 20