Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 456 (ORI)

HAREKRUSHNA JENA v. STATE OF ORISSA

2000-09-14

P.K.MISRA

body2000
JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present petitioner claims to be the tenant in respect of the disputed land. The petitioner had filed a proceeding u/s 36-A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (in short, the "O.L.R. Act") before the Revenue Officer, Basta. The said case came to the High Court in a writ application wherein the High Court remanded the matter to the Revenue Officer for fresh disposal. While the O.L.R. proceeding was pending, the present opposite party No. 8 had purchased the disputed land from the previous owner namely, Pruthunath Patra. After the case was remanded by the High Court to the Revenue Officer, the purchaser filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC (in short, the "C.P.C.") for being impleaded as a party. The said application having been rejected, the matter again came to the High Court. The High Court permitted the purchaser to be impleaded as party and to file objection subject to certain condition. It is not disputed that thereafter the matter is now pending before the Revenue Officer, Basta. 2. Simultaneously, consolidation operation started in the area in the year 1977. In course of consolidation proceeding, the property was directed to be recorded in the name of the present petitioner and Patta was issued in the year 1985. The original owner filed appeal before the Deputy Director, Consolidation, who remanded the matter for reconsideration and subsequently, the Consolidation Officer has passed an order for recording the land in the name of the subsequent purchaser. The said order which is annexed as Annexure-4 is being challenged in the present writ application. 3. From the narration of events, it is apparent that the proceeding under the O.L.R. Act is now pending before the Revenue Officer, Basta. Section 51(1) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, is as follows : "51. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts - Notwithstanding anything contained in any. 3. From the narration of events, it is apparent that the proceeding under the O.L.R. Act is now pending before the Revenue Officer, Basta. Section 51(1) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, is as follows : "51. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts - Notwithstanding anything contained in any. other law for the time being in force, but subject to the provisions contained in Clause (3) of Section 4 and Sub-Section (1) of Section 7 - (1) all questions relating to right, title, interest and liability in land lying in the consolidation area, except those coming within the jurisdiction of Revenue Courts or authorities under any local law for the time being in force, shall be decided under the provisions of this Act by the appropriate authority during the consolidation operations; and (2) xx xx xx 3. A bare perusal of Section 51(1) of the Act makes it clear that the consolidation authorities are to decide the matters which are not coming within the jurisdiction of Revenue Courts. There is no doubt that the Revenue Officer while deciding a matter u/s 36-A or Section 15 of the O.L.R. Act functions as a Revenue Court. Matter which are coming-within the jurisdiction of Revenue Courts under the O.L.R. Act are to be decided by such authorities and not by the Consolidation authorities. Since, admittedly, the proceeding is now pending before the revenue authorities, in fitness of things, it is appropriate to direct that the revenue authorities are to decide the matter in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the remarks made during the consolidation proceeding. To make it clear, it is observed that the Patta, if any, issued during the consolidation operation would be of no avail before the Revenue Court and the matter is to be decided by the Revenue Court on the basis of materials on record. It is, however, made clear that since the matters are to be finally decided by the Revenue Court, the Consolidation authorities shall not finalise the matter in respect of the disputed land and only after the matters are finalised by the Revenue Court, the question of consolidation of these lands would arise. Proceedings before the Consolidation authorities relating to the disputed land shall remain stayed till the matter is finalised by the revenue authorities. Proceedings before the Consolidation authorities relating to the disputed land shall remain stayed till the matter is finalised by the revenue authorities. The impugned order as well as the Patta issued in the year 1985 are quashed. Opposite party No. 2 is directed to finalise the matter as expeditiously as possible as per the direction in the earlier writ application. 4. Subject to the aforesaid observation, the writ application is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. This order shall be communicated to opposite parties 2 and 5.