Kadambini Satapathy vs Commissioner, Land Records & Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack and Others

Krushna Ram Mohapatra, J.—Legality and propriety of the order dated 27.01.2012 passed by Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack in R.C. No. 212 of 2007 in exercise of power under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Lands Act, 1972 (for short, the Act) (Annexure-1) as well as the order dated 18.09.2007 passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation in Appeal Case No. 29 of 2007 (Annexure-2) and the order dated 23.03.2006 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Chhatia in Remand R.P. Case No. 4223 of 2005 (Annexure-3) are under challenge in this writ petition. The Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement by his order under Annexure-1 dismissed the Revision filed by the petitioner and confirmed the claim of opposite party No. 7 herein by enhancing the area of Chaka No. 237 from Ac.0.33 decimals to Ac.0.37 decimals and allotting enhanced area of Ac.0.04 decimals in favour of opposite party No. 7.

The dispute is with regard to the land appertaining to Chaka Plot No. 909 under Hal Khata No. 154 measuring an area of Ac.0.33 decimals corresponding to Chaka No. 237 of Mouza Chhatia under Badchana P.S. in the district of Jajpur (hereinafter referred to as ''case land'').

The chronology of events which give rise to the present writ petition are as follows.

The ROR in respect of the case land was published under Section 22(1) of the Act on 30.06.1983 vide Annexure-4 in the names of Manu @ Manmohan Samantaray, Dhanu @ Dananjaya Samantaray (opposite parties 4 and 5 respectively herein) and Giridhari Samantaray (husband of respondent No. 6 herein). Out of the same, opposite party No. 5 and husband of opposite party No. 6, namely, Giridhari Samantaray sold Ac.0.22 decimals of land in favour of one Natabara Jena vide RSD No. 1750 dated 25.07.1983 after obtaining necessary permission under Section 34(2) of the Act. Subsequently, opposite party No. 4 sold an area of Ac.0.11 decimals in favour of opposite party No. 7 vide RSD No. 2033 dated 02.09.1983 after obtaining due permission from the Consolidation Authority under Section 34(2) of the Act. Thereafter, said Natabara Jena, for his legal necessity, sold his purchased area, i.e., Ac.0.22 decimals out of the case land to the petitioner vide RSD No. 1069 dated 20.05.1985 and delivered possession thereof to her. The property purchased by the petitioner was mutated in her name in Mutation Case No. 118 of 1985. Likewise, opposite party No. 7 got the land purchased by him mutated in Mutation Case No. 119 of 1985. Subsequently, the suit land was converted to homestead vide orders passed by the Tahasildar, Darpani under Section 8(1)(A) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 in OLR Case Nos. 151 of 1987 and 166 of 1986. After that, the petitioner constructed his residential house over Plot No. 909/112 pertaining to Khata No. 349/16. Likewise, opposite party No. 7 also constructed his residential house over the purchased area of Ac.0.11 decimals adjoining the residential building of the petitioner, without leaving any space in between. When the matter stood thus, after more than a decade, opposite party No. 7 filed Demarcation Case No. 25/1998 to demarcate his purchased property of Ac.0.11 decimals. Subsequently, opposite parties 4 and 5 and husband of opposite party No. 6 filed Revision Case No. 983 of 1998 under Section 37(1) of the Act before the Joint Commissioner, Consolidation contending that the actual area of Chaka plot No. 909 is Ac.0.39 decimals instead of Ac.0.33 decimals and a buffer area of Ac.0.06 decimals is available in between the areas purchased by the petitioner and opposite party No. 7. Thus, they prayed that the buffer area of Ac.0.06 decimals should be recorded in the name of opposite parties 4, 5 and husband of opposite party No. 6. The Joint Commissioner taking into consideration the report of the Consolidation Officer dismissed the said Revision by his order dated 21.01.1999 holding as under:--

"In view of my above findings, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioners that after alienation of entire area of Ac.0.33 of plot No. 909 they have still an area of Ac.0.06 in between the land of two purchasers. Thus the claim of the petitioners is devoid of any merit and requires to be dismissed.

In the result, the case is dismissed."

In view of the order passed in Revision Case No. 983 of 1998, the Tahasildar, Darpani closed the demarcation case filed by opposite party No. 7 vide order dated 08.06.1999. However, the opposite party No. 7 did not challenge the said order. On the other hand, assailing the order passed by the Joint Commissioner in Revision Case No. 983 of 1998, opposite parties 4, 5 and husband of opposite party No. 6 preferred OJC No. 2137 of 2001 before this Court. By order dated 10.12.2001, this Court directed maintenance of status quo by the parties in respect of the case land. The petitioner and opposite party No. 7 were parties to the aforesaid Revision Petition (RC No. 983 of 1998) as well as the writ petition.

Surprisingly, a counter affidavit was filed by one Amiya Kumar Das, the then Assistant Consolidation Officer (Headquarters), Chhatia, district Jajpur on behalf of opposite party No. 1 (the Commissioner, Consolidation, Orissa), relevant portion of which is quoted hereunder for ready reference.

"4. That in reply to the averments made in paragraph of the writ application it is submitted that on verification of Sabik record Sabik Plot No. 575 Ac.0.87 comes under Khata No. 84 stood recorded in favour of Nidhi Samantara, Bidyadhara Samantara, Managobind Samantaray, Dinabandhu Samatara S/o Sadhu Samantara, Sama Ch. Samantara S/o Binod Samantara by Caste Odapadhan of Village Chhatia in stitiban status. It is a fact that while an extraction the area it comes to Ac.0.83 instead of Ac.0.87 on sabik map. The corresponding L.R. Plot No. 1300 Ac.0.06, 1301 Ac.0.13, 1302 Ac.10.1303 Ac.0.23, 1304 Ac.0.12, 1305 Ac.0.11 and 1300/-1906 Ac.0.04 total area of Ac.0.79 dec. have been recorded in L.R. Khata No. 53. So there is discrepancy of Area Ac.0.04 dec. only. During Chaka carvation period U/s 17 of the O.C.H. and P.F.L. Act, 1972 the above L.R. Plots have been allotted in five Nos. of Chaka plots such as 908, 909, 910, 911 and 908/1062. On extraction of area of hal suit plot No. 909 it is ascertained that there is an excess area of Ac.0.04 than the recorded area of Ac.0.33. Hence Ac.0.37 dec. should have been recorded the name of the petitioners as against their claims for Ac.0.39.

That in reply to the averments made in paragraph 4 and 5 of the writ application it is submitted that after alienation of Ac.0.33 by the petitioners the remaining area in the field would only be Ac.0.04 as against Ac.0.06."

In the said writ petition (OJC No. 2137 of 2001), the present petitioner, who was the opposite party No. 4 therein, filed his counter affidavit disclosing the aforesaid chronological events. The opposite party No. 7 also filed his counter affidavit stating that his purchased area should be kept intact. However, the writ petition (OJC No. 2137 of 2001) was withdrawn. Accordingly, the order passed in R.C. No. 983 of 1998 became final. In the interregnum, the opposite party No. 7 filed T.S. No. 275 of 2003 against opposite party No. 4 for specific performance of contract in respect of an area Ac.0.06 decimals (as discussed above) claiming that in a family partition (pursuant to an unregistered deed of family settlement) between Samantaray brothers, the said Ac.0.06 decimals fell to the share of opposite party No. 4, which he purportedly agreed to sell in favour of opposite party No. 7 by agreement dated 05.03.1984. The same was decreed vide judgment dated 07.04.2004 passed on compromise between opposite party Nos. 4 and 7. Accordingly, registered sale deed dated 25.08.2004 was executed by opposite party No. 4 in favour of opposite party No. 7. The Tahasildar, Darpani thereafter initiated suo motu Mutation Case bearing No. 1630 of 2005 to mutate the aforesaid Ac.0.06 decimals of land in favour of opposite party No. 7. However, the said mutation case was dropped on 12.11.2005 on the ground of situational impossibility as physically there was no land available on the field as such. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 7 filed R.P. Case No. 4223 of 2005 under Section 37(2) of the Act before the Director of Consolidation for correction of area and to record the enhanced area in the name of opposite party No. 7. In the said Revision case, the petitioner was not made a party. The Director, Consolidation and Holdings by his order dated 27.01.2006 remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer, Chhatia for disposal. Accordingly, the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 23.03.2006 disposed of Remand R.P. No. 4223 of 2005 by enhancing the area of Chaka Plot No. 909 from Ac.0.33 decimals to Ac.0.37 decimals and also directed to record the said Ac.0.04 decimals in the name of opposite party No. 7. Accordingly, the Tahasildar, Darpani corrected the area by carving Khata No. 349/82 Chaka No. 237/291, appertaining Plot No. 909/1156 for an area of Ac.0.04 decimals and issued ROR in respect of said land in the name of opposite party No. 7. Petitioner came to know about the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer in Remand Revision Case No. 4223 of 2005 and recording of the land in the name of opposite party No. 7, when opposite party No. 7 tried to encroach upon the constructed area. Thus, she filed Consolidation Appeal No. 29 of 2007 along with a petition for condonation of delay challenging the order dated 23.03.2006 passed by the Consolidation Officer. Though the delay was condoned, the Director of Consolidation dismissed the appeal by his order dated 18.09.2007 (Annexure-2) with the finding that the direction to record an extra area of Ac.0.04 decimals by the Consolidation Officer does not affect the purchased area of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner preferred R.C. No. 212 of 2007 assailing the said order under Annexure-2 under Section 36 of the Act. In the meantime, opposite party No. 7 by virtue of record of right issued in his favour filed C.S. No. 230 of 2008 praying eviction of the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has encroached upon his purchased land of Ac.0.04 decimals and also prayed for a mandatory injunction to demolish the construction made by the petitioner over the enhanced area of Ac. 0.04 decimals along with ancillary reliefs. The petitioner had also filed W.P.(C) No. 13914 of 2008 challenging the order of the Director in R.P. Case No. 4223 of 2005 remanding the same to the Consolidation Officer for disposal. This Court vide order dated 02.12.2008, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to dispose of the Revision Case No. 212 of 2007 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months. Accordingly, the Joint Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement passed the impugned order under Annexure-1. It would not out of contest to mention here that the petitioner had filed petition to stay of further proceeding in CS No. 230 of 2008 in view of pendency of R.C. No. 212 of 2007 and the prayer being rejected, he had filed W.P.(C) Nos. 4257 and 4258 of 2012 before this Court. During pendency of those writ petitions, this Court vide order dated 28.06.2012, while hearing those two writ petitions directed for deputation of a Survey knowing Commissioner to submit a report to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jajpur before whom the C.S. No. 230 of 2008 is pending. Subsequently, on submission of the report, this Court disposed of the aforesaid writ petitions holding those to be infructuous vide order dated 12.12.2013 and directed the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jajpur to mark the report of the Survey knowing Commissioner as an exhibit in the suit in accordance with law.

On the aforesaid factual matrix, respective contentions of the parties are to be considered.

The case of the petitioner is that after purchase of Ac.0.22 decimals of land out of the case land from Natabara Jena, she constructed her residential house thereon and bounded the same with boundary wall with grill gate and continued to possess the same without any interruption. Opposite party No. 7 also constructed his residential house over Ac.0.11 decimals adjoining to the eastern boundary of the petitioner''s house without leaving any gap and continued to possess the same as his residence. The Revision case No. 983 of 1998 filed by Samantaray brothers (opposite parties 4, 5 and husband of opposite party No. 6) was rightly dismissed by the Joint Commissioner vide order dated 21.01.1999 with the finding that in the Provisional Consolidation Scheme (PCS) Plot No. 909 has been carved out from four different LR plots as per their (Samantaray brothers'') entitlement. Possession was delivered to them as per final publication under Section 22(2) of the Act on 30.06.1983. Notification under Section 41 of the Act has also been made since long. They had accepted the same and thereafter transferred the land in two registered sale deeds as per their respective shares. The total area of Sabik Plot No. 575 was Ac.0.87 decimals, which has been carved out during consolidation proceeding. The Plot No. 909 was carved out to be Ac. 0.33 decimals. Thus, the claim of Samantaray brothers that the area of Hal Plot No. 909 is Ac.0.38.50 decimals and not Ac.0.33 decimals, is not acceptable. The description of the boundary in the sale deed made in favour of Natabara Jena clearly indicates that eastern side adjoins the land of Narahari Samantaray. The share of Narahari Samantaray (father of opposite party No. 4) is only Ac. 0.11 decimals and he had sold the same to one Durga Charan Nayak. Hence, it does not stand to reason that an area Ac. 0.06 decimals lies between the plot of Kadambini Satapathy (petitioner) and Durga Charan Nayak (Opp. Party No. 7). Demarcation case initiated by Opp. Party No. 7 was rightly dropped in view of the order passed in Revision case No. 983 of 1998. Opposite Party No. 7 was also a party to OJC No. 2137 of 2001. In his counter affidavit, he did not utter a single word regarding any such alleged agreement of sale made by opposite party No. 4 in his favour. On the other hand, he took a stand that his purchased area should be confirmed by admitting that he had purchased an area of Ac.0.11 decimals which was duly recorded in his name. Though Samantaray brothers projected a case of enhancement of Ac.0.06 decimals over and above Ac.0.33 decimals in Chaka plot No. 909, they did not pursue their claim. Subsequently, OJC No. 2137 of 2001 was withdrawn by Samantrary brothers. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 05.04.2007 and order dated 21.01.1999 passed in RC No. 983 of 1998 became final and conclusive for all purposes. The petitioner further contended that the opposite party No. 7 filed T.S. No. 275 of 2003 against opposite party No. 4 without impleading the present petitioner as a party for specific performance of contract alleging that there was an agreement for sale dated 05.03.1984 by the opposite party No. 4. The suit was decreed on compromise between the said opposite parties 4 and 7, wherein opposite party No. 4 agreed to transfer the nonexistent Ac.0.06 decimals of land in favour of opposite party No. 7. Accordingly, registered sale deed dated 25.08.2004 was executed by opposite party No. 4 in favour of opposite party No. 7 in respect of said Ac.0.06 decimals of land which is not in existence. A suo motu mutation case bearing No. 1630 of 2005 initiated by the Tahasildar, Darpani was dropped vide order dated 12.11.2005 on the ground of situational impossibility after a local enquiry being conducted, wherein it was found that there was no land as such. The opposite party No. 7 filed R.P. Case No. 4223 of 2005 under Section 37(2) of the Act before the Director, Consolidation against Samantaray brothers without impleading the petitioner as a party praying, inter alia, to record the aforesaid Ac.0.06 decimals of land in his name by enhancing the area of Chaka Plot No. 909. The Director, Consolidation, who had no jurisdiction to entertain such petition after notification under Section 41(1) of the Act, by an innocuous order dated 27.01.2006 at the stage of admission, remanded the matter to the Consolidation officer, Chhatia for correction of record of right. The Consolidation Officer also without applying his mind mechanically passed an order dated 23.03.2006 directing correction of the area of Chaka plot No. 909 from Ac.0.33 decimals to Ac.0.37 decimals which overlapped the constructed area of the petitioner. The opposite party No. 7 had suppressed about the order passed in R.C. No. 983 of 1998 and Demarcation Case No. 25 of 1998 as well as the order passed in Suo Motu Mutation Case No. 1630 of 2005 before the Director, Consolidation and Holdings. However, the petitioner came to know about the same when the opposite party No. 7 tried to encroach upon her constructed area. Thus, she filed Consolidation Appeal No. 29 of 2007 challenging the order dated 23.03.2006 passed by the Consolidation Officer along with a petition for condonation of delay. The Deputy Director of Consolidation without taking into consideration the aforesaid material facts and orders passed by the competent court of law refused to entertain the appeal on the ground that the order of the Consolidation Officer does not affect the purchased area of the petitioner and thereby dismissed the appeal vide order dated 18.09.2007 (Annexure-2). Aggrieved by such order under Annexure-2, the petitioner preferred R.C. No. 212 of 2007 under Section 36 of the Act. However, the Joint Commissioner, Consolidation without considering the grievance of the petitioner in its proper perspective, by a cryptic order dated 27.01.2012 dismissed the said Revision (Annexure-1). Hence, finding no other alternative, she filed the present writ petition. The orders under Annexures- 1, 2 and 3 being perverse and vitiated for non-consideration of materials on record, the petitioner prayed to quash the same.

The opposite party No. 7, who only contested the writ petition, strongly refuting the contentions raised therein stated that it is the specific case of the petitioner that his vender, namely, Natabara Jena, had purchased Ac.0.22 decimals of land out of the case land from western side of Plot No. 909. The sale deed executed in favour of opposite party No. 7 discloses that he had purchased Ac.0.11 decimals of land out of plot No. 909 from eastern side of the plot. When the Commissioner of Consolidation in the counter affidavit filed in OJC No. 2137 of 2001 has specifically stated that there is an excess area of Ac.0.04 decimals land in plot No. 909, it is bound to exist in between the purchased land of the petitioner and opposite party No. 7. It is the petitioner who by encroaching upon the said buffer area constructed his residential house which has resulted in several litigations and the opposite party No. 7 is being harassed in spite of the fact that he had purchased an area of Ac.0.06 decimals of land from said opposite party No. 4 pursuant to a decree of the competent court of law in T.S. No. 275 of 2003. Opposite party No. 7, in his counter affidavit, also contended that the registered sale deed No. 1069 dated 20.05.1985 executed in favour of the petitioner disclosed that the land of Narottam @ Narahari Samantaray exists to the east of the land, the petitioner had purchased. The sale deed executed in favour of opposite party No. 7 by said Narahari Samantary disclosed that the land of the said Narahari Samantary exists to the western side of the land purchased by opposite party No. 7. Thus, there exists a buffer area in between the purchased land of the petitioner and opposite party No. 7. The Amin report dated 25.06.1998 submitted in the Mutation Case No. 118 of 1985 filed by the petitioner, Tahasil Amin report dated 04.09.1998 and report dated 30.07.2012 submitted by the Survey knowing Commissioner deputed pursuant to order of this Court in W.P.(C) Nos. 4257 and 4258 of 2012 also disclosed that there exists a buffer area in between the purchased land of the petitioner as well as opposite party No. 7. He contended that pursuant to the decree passed in T.S. No. 275 of 2003, opposite party No. 4 executed a registered sale deed on 25.08.2004 in favour of opposite party No. 7. The registering Authority in turn intimated the local Tahasildar about such execution and thereby suo motu mutation proceeding in Mutation Case No. 1630 of 2005 was taken up by Tahalsider, Darpani. But the same stood dropped on the ground that the sale of land was beyond the Patta (R.O.R.) of the concerned plot. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 7 was constrained to move the Director of Consolidation for enhancement of the area in Plot No. 909 in R.P. Case No. 4223 of 2005, who by order dated 27.01.2006 remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer, Chhhatia for disposal. The Consolidation Officer, Chhatia vide his order dated 23.3.2006 disposed of Remand R.P. Case No. 4223 of 2005 by enhancing area of plot No. 909 from Ac. 0.33 decimal to Ac. 0.37 decimals and enhanced the area of the present opposite party No. 7 from Ac.0.11 decimal to Ac.0.15 decimals. However, by such enhancement, area of the petitioner remained un-touched and thus, the Director, Consolidation and the Joint Commissioner of Land Records have rightly rejected the plea of the petitioner as she was not aggrieved by such enhancement or by recording of the land in favour of opposite party No. 7. The petitioner has no right, title, interest or possession beyond his purchased area of Ac.0.22 decimals from the western side of Plot No. 909. Though the petitioner had filed writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 13914 of 2008 assailing the order of remand in R.P. Case No. 4223 of 2005, this Court vide order dated 02.12.2008 directed the Commissioner, Consolidation, Odisha to dispose of the Consolidation Revision Case No. 212 of 2007 within a period of six months. Hence, the order of remand passed in R.P. Case No. 4223 of 2005 became final and the same is not available to be challenged. The petitioner has not produced a single scrap of paper to show that she would be affected by enhancement of the area of Plot No. 909. The writ petition has only been filed to hide her misdeed of encroachment and forcible construction beyond her purchased area of Ac.0.22 decimals. As the opposite party No. 7 has been harassed by the petitioner in different ways, she had no other alternative than to file T.S. No. 230 of 2008 seeking a decree for eviction and recovery of possession along with mandatory injunction against the petitioner before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jajpur. The opposite party No. 7 has already filed his evidence affidavit therein on 30.11.2010. In order to frustrate the said proceeding, the petitioner had moved the learned Civil Judge twice for stay of further proceeding of the suit on the ground of pendency of Consolidation revision. Those petitions were considered and rejected by the learned Civil Judge against which the petitioner had filed W.P.(C) Nos. 4257 and 4258 of 2012. This Court while considering those two writ petitions vide order dated 28.06.2012 directed for deputation of a Survey knowing Commissioner to conduct an investigation with regard to area of Plot No. 909. The Survey knowing Commissioner has already submitted his report to the learned Civil Judge disclosing that Plot No. 909 is to an extent of Ac.0.37 decimals. Thus, while disposing of writ petition W.P.(C) Nos. 4257 and 4258 of 2012, this Court by order dated 12.12.2013 directed that the report the Survey knowing commissioner should be marked as exhibit in accordance with law. The Authorities under the Consolidation Act while adjudicating the matter as in Annexures-1, 2 and 3 have categorically held that there was an inadvertent mistake while carving out Consolidation Plot No. 909 from the Sabik plots. Thus, they have opined that the Consolidation Plot No. 909 should be of Ac. 0.37 decimals instead of Ac. 0.33 decimals and such enhancement will not affect the right, title and interest of the petitioner, who has purchased the land to an extent of Ac. 0.22 decimals from western side of the consolidation Plot No. 909. The Joint Commissioner also in his counter affidavit in OJC No. 2137 of 2001 reiterated the same. Thus, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and hence the same is liable to be dismissed with cost.

From the rival contentions of the parties, it emanates that crux of the dispute is with regard to the alleged existence of a piece of buffer land in between the lands purchased by the petitioner to an extent of Ac.0.22 decimals and that of the opposite party No. 7 to an extent of Ac.0.11 decimals. Both the parties have raised factual and legal grounds in support of their respective cases.

Mr. R.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the boundaries reflected in sale deed dated 20.05.1985 is similar to that of the boundary reflected in RSD No. 1750 dated 25.07.1983 executed by Dhanu and Giridhari Samantary in favour of Natabara Jena who subsequently sold the same to the present petitioner. The boundaries reflected in the sale deeds loses its importance in view of the series of orders passed by different authorities under the Act. Moreover, it is an apparent error in view of the pleadings of opposite party No. 7 to the effect that the alleged buffer area fell to the share of opposite party No. 4 (Manu Samantray) in a family partition. Admittedly, neither the petitioner was a party to the R.P. Case No. 4223 of 2005 nor any notice has been issued to the petitioner by the Consolidation Officer, Chhatia while adjudicating the case of remand. The petitioner is a necessary party to the Remand Revision Case No. 4223 of 2005 in view of the admitted fact that the residential house of the petitioner situates to the immediate west of the area, i.e., Ac.0.11 decimals purchased by opposite party No. 7 from Manu Samantaray (opposite party No. 4). Thus, he ought to have been given an opportunity of hearing in the matter. The Deputy Director also did not discuss anything about the previous proceedings and orders passed by the Consolidation and Settlement authorities, more particularly the orders passed in Consolidation Revision No. 983 of 1998. In that view of the matter, the finding of the Deputy Director, Consolidation in Consolidation appeal No. 29 of 2007 holding that the petitioner is not an aggrieved party, is not sustainable in the eye of law. The Revisional Court in R.C. No. 212 of 2007 though discussed the respective cases of the parties did not at all discuss the same and endorsed the finding of the Deputy Director, Consolidation holding that the purchased area of the petitioner would not be affected in view of the enhancement of an area of Ac.0.04 decimals in Chaka plot No. 909. Thus, it being a cryptic and non-speaking order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 7 reiterated the contentions discussed in detail herein above. He emphasized more on the description of boundaries in the sale deeds dated 25.7.1983, 02.09.1983 and 20.05.1985, which disclose that the land of Narahari Samantray is available in between the purchased area of the petitioner and opposite party No. 7. He also relied upon certain Amin report, report of the Survey knowing Commissioner appointed pursuant to the direction of this Court and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Commissioner, Consolidation in OJC No. 2137 of 2001. Thus, he supported the impugned orders under Annexures-1, 2 and 3 and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

Admittedly, the Consolidation Officer, Chhatia was not appraised of the fact of orders passed in R.P. Case No. 983 of 1998 and OJC No. 2137 of 2001. He was also not appraised of different orders passed in different Mutation Cases. The petitioner was not a party to the said proceedings. The appellate authority in Consolidation Appeal No. 29 of 2007 dealt with the matter mechanically, which is apparent from the discussion and the findings recorded by him under Annexure-3. Likewise, the order of the Commissioner under Annexure-1 is a cryptic and non-speaking one as he has not discussed the contentions of either of the parties. It cannot be ignored that this Court while adjudicating W.P.(C) Nos. 4257 and 4258 of 2012 directed for appointment of a Survey knowing Commissioner to submit a report taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties. In obedience to the direction of this Court, the Survey knowing Commissioner has already submitted his report to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jajpur before whom the suit filed by opposite party No. 7 in C.S. No. 230 of 2008 for eviction and mandatory injunction is pending. The descriptions of boundaries in the abovementioned sale deeds were made taking into consideration the map in respect of Chaka Plot No. 909 as existing then. All these facts were not taken into consideration by the consolidation authorities while passing orders under Annexures-1, 2 and 3. Thus, the same being question of fact cannot be adjudicated in this writ petition. Thus, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that the rival contentions of the parties which involve disputed questions of fact and law need fresh adjudication. In that view of the matter, I have no hesitation to quash the orders passed under Annexures-1, 2 and 3 of the writ petition. Accordingly, the orders under Annexures-1, 2 and 3 are quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Consolidation Officer, Chhatia, who shall do well to adjudicate the matter afresh after issuing notice to the parties to the writ petition and permit them to adduce/produce oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their case. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six months from today. Till then, status quo in respect of the suit land shall be maintained by the parties concerned.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.