IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.32955 of 2023

(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950) Gandharba Barik …. Petitioner

-versus-

Commissioner of Consolidation, …. Opposite Parties

Odisha, Bhubaneswar and Others

Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement

(Virtual/Physical Mode):

For Petitioner - Mr. Hrudananda Mohapatra,

Advocate.

For Opposite Parties - Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty,

Standing Counsel

Mr. S. Behera,

Advocate. CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA

Date of Hearing and Judgment :13.10.2025

A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the

Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the impugned order dated 09.06.2023 (Annexure-4) passed in Revision Case No.81 of 2021 by the Commissioner Consolidation, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.1) on the ground that, the impugned order passed by the O.P. No.1 is baseless, because the O.P. No.1 has decided the Revision Case No.81 of 2021 taking into consideration to some extraneous materials without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to

explain about the authenticity, genuineness and relevancy of the said extraneous materials.

To which, learned counsel for O.P. Nos.4 to 6 vehemently objected contending that, the case land has been recorded properly by the Consolidation Authorities under Hal Khata No.256, Plot No.1199 Ac0.13 decimals in the name of the petitioner on the basis of the title deeds, because the donor of the petitioner had purchased the case land from its exclusive owner i.e. Mahani Singh. That, Mahani Singh had transferred the same to Sindhu Barik through a registered sale deed. After the death of Sindhu Barik, his wife Hadi Bewa had gifted the case land to the predecessor of the O.P. Nos.4 to 6 i.e. Khetramohan Barik. For which, the case land has been properly recorded in the name of Khetramohan Barik.

2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for O.P. Nos.4 to 6 and learned Standing counsel for O.P. Nos.1 to 3.

3. The document submitted by the petitioner said to have been issued by the Asst. Consolidation Officer, Kakatpur shows that, Sabik Hal Khata No.604 Plot No.899 Ac0.19 decimals corresponds to Hal Khata No.256, Hal Plot No.1199 Ac0.13 decimals, which also corresponds to LR Plot No.1162. The said properties were recorded in the names of Rama Barik S/o Laxman Barik, Sindhu Barik S/o Braja Barik.

In the impugned order dated 09.06.2023 (Annexure-4), it has been reflected by the O.P. No.1 that, “the case land was recorded in the name of Mahani Singh S/o Bhagabat Singh having 50% share and Madhu Padhan, Madan Padhan S/o Shyam Padhan having 50% share under sthitiban status. Mahani Singh S/o Bhagabat Singh had transferred their 50% share out of Sabik Plot No.899 Ac0.19 decimals i.e. Ac0.09 ½ decimals in favour of Sindhu Barik S/o Braja Barik through RSD dated 02.12.1941. Later on, after the death of Sindhu Barik, his wife Hadi Bewa transferred that Ac.0.095 decimals of Plot No.899 in favour of Khetramohan Barik. Information shows Sabik Plot No.899 corresponds to Plot No.1199 Ac0.13 decimals in consolidation operation. Therefore, considering these documents, record of Hal Plot No.1199 Ac0.13 decimals has been prepared in the name of Khetramohan Barik S/o Dinabandhu Barik under Hal Khata No.256.

The petitioner in this writ petition (petitioner in Revision Case No.81 of 2021) could not establish his claim showing relevant document. For which, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed on merit.”

4. When, the so called document filed by the petitioner of this writ petition (petitioner in Revision Case No.81 of 2021) issued by the Assistant Consolidation Officer shows that, the case land vide Hal Plot No.1199 corresponds to Sabik Plot No.899 was originally recorded in the name of Rama Barik and Sindhu Barik and when in the impugned order dated 09.06.2023 passed in Revision Case No.81 of 2021 by the O.P. No.1, it has been indicated that, the case land was or