Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 894 (ORI)

Traillokya Nath Nayak v. State

2014-12-22

B.K.NAYAK

body2014
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner learned Additional Government and Miss Mishra learned counsel for the Intervenors. 2. Notification No.580 dated 04.01.2011 (Annexure-1) issued by the Government of Orissa under Section 5(1) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act1972 cancelling the Notification No.50265-CH (Legis)-3073-R dated 06.08.1973 (Annexure-3) issued in the erstwhile Department of Revenue & Excise under Section 3(1) of the said Act in respect of village-Sunguda has been assailed in this writ application. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that final record of rights under Section 22(1) of the Act had already been published since April 1991 vide Annexure-2 series in respect of the village concerned and therefore it was not within the competence of the State Government to cancel the notification under Section 3(1) in exercise of power under Section 5(1) of the said Act. 4. Learned counsel for the intervenors submits that the matter of Consolidation in the village concerned needs to be relegated to the stage of Section 9 of the Consolidation Act. 5. A division Bench of this Court in the case of Govinda Chandra Tripathy and others v. The State of Orissa and others, 1989(I) OLR 367 have already held that the power of concellation conferred on the State Government under Section 5(1) of the Consolidation Act can be exercised only before the publication of final map and record of rights under Section 22 of the Act and not after that. Neither the State Counsel nor the counsel for the intervenors dispute that final record of rights and map for the disputed village have already been published under Section 22 of the Act much prior to the impugned notification. Therefore in view of the law laid down by the division Bench of this Court as referred to above the impugned notification under Annexure-1 is quashed. 6. This Court is not inclined to entertain the plea and prayer raised by the intervenors. It is open to them to seek any appropriate remedy before any competent forum. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.