IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.20394 of 2009 (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)

---------------

Niranjan Satapathy & others. ...… Petitioners -Versus-

Benudhar Satapathy & others ..…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

____________________________________________________________________

For Petitioner : Mr. S.Mishra, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. R.P Sutar, Advocate Mrs. J. Sahoo, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM:

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

JUDGMENT

5th May, 2026 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The petitioners seek to assail the order dated

16.10.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation & Settlement, Cuttack in Revision Case No. 900 of 2001 under Section 37(1) of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act, 1972 allowing the revision and granting 1/3rd share of the case land to the opposite parties.

2. The dispute between the parties relates to Sabik Khata No. 20 corresponding to Hal Khata Nos. 246, 215 and 227 of Mouza Badaphogal under the consolidation jurisdiction of Kendrapara. The case of the petitioners is that one Bholanath Satpathy, predecessor-in-interest of the opposite parties having been adopted by one Maguni Satpathy and renamed as Narayan Satpathy, ceased to have any right, title and interest over the property of his natural father, namely Laxmidhar Satpathy.

During consolidation operation, several objection cases under Section 9(3) of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act, 1972 were instituted being Objection Case Nos. 2180/83, 1615/339 and 1768/110. The Consolidation Officer, Kendrapara, by orders dated 28.06.1983, 03.10.1983 and 29.09.1983 held that Bholanath Satpathy was the adopted son of Maguni Satpathy and therefore, not entitled to inherit the property of Laxmidhar Satpathy.

Said orders were challenged in Consolidation Appeal No. 225/83 before the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Kendrapara, which were dismissed by order dated 10.06.1985. Thereafter, revisions under Section 36 of the Act bearing Nos.

2210/81 and 1577/89 were preferred before the Commissioner, Consolidation, Cuttack which were also dismissed by orders dated 08.11.1996 and 29.09.1997, thereby confirming the order of the Consolidation Officer.

Subsequently, a revision under Section 37(1) of the Act being Revision Case No. 221/89 was filed which was allowed by order dated 02.03.1994 by Commissioner, Consolidation & Settlement, Cuttack remanding the matter to the Consolidation Officer for fresh disposal. Upon remand, the Consolidation Officer by order dated 05.07.2001 again held that Bholanath Satpathy was not entitled to any share in the property of Laxmidhar Satpathy. However, the legal heirs of Bholanath Satpathy without preferring any appeal under Section 12 of the Act filed Revision Case No. 900 of 2001 under Section 37(1) of the Act before the Commissioner, Consolidation & Settlement, Cuttack. Commissioner. By order dated 16.10.2009, the Commissioner allowed the revision and directed that 1/3rd share be carved out and allotted in favour of the opposite parties. Said order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

3. Counter Affidavit has been filed by Opposite Party Nos. 5 to 8 stating that the present writ petition is filed without any cause of action. It is stated that the petitioners have suppressed material facts and that late Bholanath Satpathy was never adopted by Maguni Satpathy and continued to remain the natural son of Laxmidhar Satpathy.

It is also stated that the orders passed by the consolidation authorities in the earlier round of litigation were without appreciation of evidence and in violation of procedure particularly in deciding questions relating to status and title. Further, the previous two revisions preferred were dismissed for default. In regard to the impugned order it is stated that the order was passed upon due consideration of the materials on record and in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on the Commissioner under Section 37 of the Act.

4. Heard Mr. S.Mishra, learned counsel appearing