JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. — The petitioner in this writ application challenges the legality of the orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities in Annexure-5 and 6. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the Mouza in which the disputed land situates came within the purview of the consol¬idation operation in the 1979-80. The disputed land appertains to consolidation plot No.296 under Chakka No. 106 and Khata No. 172 in Mouza Bisipada. The said plot was recorded in the name of one Mathurananda Mohanty, the predecessors of the petitioner and opposite party No.32. After closure of the consolidation opera¬tion, notification under Section 41 was published on 19.7.1982 and patta was issued to the petitioner on 22.7.1983. After obtain¬ing patta, the petitioner developed the plot and remained in enjoyment thereof for almost a decade. In the year, 1993, the opposite parties 3 to 31 filed a Revision before the Commission¬er, Consolidation, Cuttack under Section 37(1) of the Consolida¬tion of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. In the said Revision,it was alleged by the said opposite parties that chakka No.106 which was allotted in favour of the petitioner was being used by them as a public road to approach the Cuttack, Govindpur Canal Road and in the final consolidation proceeding it has been wrongly allotted in favour of the peti¬tioner. It was also contended by the said opposite parties in the Revision that adjacent owner of Chakka No.106 namely Dhuruba Charan Mallick was agreeable to donate Ac.0.04 decimals of land to the petitioner in exchange of the land which was proposed to be used as a road. A prayer was made in the Revision to modify the Chakka No.106 which had been allotted to the petitioner during the consolidation operation. Though such revision was filed on false and frivolous grounds, the Commissioner accepted the revi¬sion filed almost after 10 years, after consolidation operation was completed and remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer, Cuttack Sadar for fresh adjudication of under Section 19 of the Act. After remand, the Consolidation Officer disallowed the claim of the opposite parties. As against this order of the Consolida¬tion Officer, the opposite parties carried an appeal before the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Cuttack. After remand, the Consolidation Officer disallowed the claim of the opposite parties. As against this order of the Consolida¬tion Officer, the opposite parties carried an appeal before the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Cuttack. In appeal, the order of the Consolidation Officer was set aside and it was directed that the Chakka No.105 be allotted in favour of the petitioner and Chakka No.106 be used for construction of the road. Challenging the said order of the appellate authority, the petitioner filed a Revision. The Revisional having been dismissed, the writ applica¬tion has been filed. 3. Shri Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that during consolidation operation Chakka No.106 had been allotted in favour of the petitioner and after grant of patta he developed the land and remained in possession thereof for about 10 years. There was no objection from any corner during the aforesaid period and suddenly in the year 1993 a Revision was filed by the opposite parties 3 to 31 under Sec¬tion 37(i) of the Act before the Commissioner, Consolidation. It was further submitted by Shri Mohapatra that there being no mate¬rial on record to show that at any point of time the alleged road existed covering the Chakka No.106, there was no necessity to entertain the Revision filed at belated stage. 4. So far as this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, I am of the view that the order was passed by the Commissioner in February, 1994 and the petitioner did not challenge the same and participated in the proceeding before the Consolidation Officer. In this writ application also the petitioner does not challenge the legality of the said order and, therefore, I am of the view that such contention cannot be raised at present. 5. Shri Mahapatra referring to the order passed by the Consolidation Officer submitted that there is a specific finding in the order of the Consolidation Officer that no road existed on Chakka No.106 and, therefore, the claim of the opposite parties that by mistake or due to inadvertence Chakka No.106 was allotted in favour of the petitioner is not correct. 5. Shri Mahapatra referring to the order passed by the Consolidation Officer submitted that there is a specific finding in the order of the Consolidation Officer that no road existed on Chakka No.106 and, therefore, the claim of the opposite parties that by mistake or due to inadvertence Chakka No.106 was allotted in favour of the petitioner is not correct. As against this argu¬ment, Shri Routray, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties contended that the petitioner is not at all prejudiced and in exchange of Chakka No.106, he has been duly compensated with a portion of Chakka No.105 and in greater interest of the public, the orders passed by the Appellate and Revisional Author¬ities should be maintained. 6. From the order of the Consolidation Officer, it appears that the contesting opposite parties contended before him that they were using a portion of the Chakka No.106 to approach public road and unfortunately in the consolidation operation, the same has been recorded in the name of one Mathurananda Mohanty, Prede¬cessor of the petitioner. In view of such stand taken by the contesting opposite parties, the Consolidation Officer himself conducted a spot inquiry to assess the real fact and on enquiry, he found that there was no road over Chakka No.106 and that villagers of both villages are passing through Sarbasadharan road plot No.384 at Bisipada to Sarbasadharan Road plot No.87 of the village Paikapada through northern ridges of chakka No.106 and the road has been constructed over plot No.130, 131 and 133. He also observed that the committee members of the village Bisipada have not given their willingness and consent for such road plan¬ning though it may be beneficial for both the villagers. In the order, he has also mentioned that he had consulted with the committee members of the village Bisipada and they refused to give their willingness and consent for such road planning. On the basis of such finding, the Consolidation Officer rejected the claim of the petitioners 1 to 31. The Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority allowed the claim of the opposite parties solely on the ground that the petitioner was being offered a land in exchange and, therefore, there should not be any objection on the part of the petitioner to the proposal for use of Chakka No.106 I am unable to accept the reasons given by the appellate authority as well as Revisional Authority. Chakka No.106 had been allotted in favour of the petitioner during the consolidation proceeding and he had remained in possession thereof and had undertaken development of the plot and there was no objection from any corner whatsoever for ten years. Suddenly the require¬ment of road by the contesting opposite parties appears to be unjustified. Moreover, from the order of the Consolidation Offi¬cer, it is clear that he had visited the spot personally and did not find any road existing over Chakka No.106. It is, therefore, clear that contesting opposite parties did not come to the Court in clean hands and falsely claimed that a road was existing over Chakka No.106. The claim of the contesting opposite parties appears to be an after thought in order to include the Chakka No.106 for construction of the road which has been done in recent past as observed by the Consolidation Officer. 7. In view of the discussion made above, I am of the view that the order passed by the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority in Annexures-5 and 6 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ application is allowed. The orders passed by the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority in Annexures-5 and 6 are quashed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Application allowed.