AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The challenge in the present writ appeal is to an order dated 17th December, 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Appellants’ W.P.(C) No.34507 of 2021. In the said writ petition, the Appellants had challenged the order dated 30th July, 2021 passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in R.C. No.107 of 2014 allowing the revision petition filed by the Respondent Nos.3 to 6 holding that Abdul Samad is the natural son of Maizar Mohammed.
The objection in that regard claiming that he was the adopted son was raised by these Appellants in the consolidation proceedings. The decision of the Consolidation Officer in their favour was reversed by the Commissioner in R.C. No.107 of 2014.
The learned Single Judge has noted how sufficient materials were placed on record before the Commissioner to enable him to come to the above conclusion. The learned Single has accordingly concurred with the findings of the Commissioner.
Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants submits that the Appellants would now like to go before the Civil Court raising a claim and till such time the Civil Court decides, the findings in the consolidation proceedings against them should be kept in abeyance.
The Court is unable to agree with the above submission. It is the Appellants who raised the objection in the first place and have invited orders in the consolidation proceedings which negate their contentions. They cannot now be heard to turn around and say that the findings against them in the consolidation proceedings should not be acted upon.
There is a second difficulty which is that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge has been passed in the petition under Article-227 of the Constitution. Applying the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Mahammed Saud v. Dr. (Maj) Shaikh Mahfooz 2008(II) OLR (FB) 725 which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Mahammed Saud v. Dr. (Maj) Shaikh Mahfooz (2010) 13 SCC 517, the present writ appeal is not maintainable.
Consequently, the Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ appeal and it is dismissed on both the ground of maintainability as well as on merits.
…………………………………