Orissa High Court
OJC/2720/2000 on 25 June, 2018
Author: Biswanath Rath
Bench: Biswanath Rath
O.J.C. No.2720 of 2000
33. 25.06.2018 Heard Shri P.K. Rath, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Shri N.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the
contesting private opposite party and Shri K.K. Mishra,
learned Additional Government Advocate.
This matter involves a challenge to the order
passed by the revisional authority vide Annexure-1
thereby reversing the appellate order and further thereby
confirming the order passed by the Consolidation Officer
involving a matter under the Orissa Consolidation of
Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act,
1972.
Short background involved in this case is that on
12.04.1962 the doner namely Padmabati Bewa, W/o-Kelu
executed a Registered Gift Deed in favour of Purusottam
Jena i.e. the Donee. On 16.05.1971 the Donee
Purusottam Jena died leaving behind Maina his mother
and Padmabati Jena @ Swain his wife. On 22.10.1972
Maina mother of Pursottam Jena died leaving behind
Padmabati Jena @ Swain as the sole legal heir. In the
meantime, on 27.02.1973 the Doner Padmabati Bewa
cancelled the Registered Gift Deed dated 12.04.1962
unilaterally without any notice to the Donee or his legal
heirs. In another development on 23.05.1973, 3.08.1975,
23.03.1976, the donor sold the land to opposite party-
Bidyadhar Lenka by cancelling the Gift Deed dated
12.04.1962. In another development on 20.03.1976
Padmabati Swain @ Jena, W/o-Purusottam Jena i.e. the
Donee sold the land to the petitioner Kumudini Nayak by
the Registered Sale Deed. While the matter stood thus on
2
the basis of three sale deeds dated 23.05.1973, 3.08.1975
and 23.03.1976 the opposite parties filed objection case
for recording the disputed land in his favour. The
objection case was disposed of observing that for the
condition attached with the gift deed, the gift deed was
liable to be cancelled, thus observing that the
cancellation as valid, the original authority allowed the
objection case in favour of the private opposite parties.
On appeal by the petitioner, the appellate authority while
allowing the appeal reversed the order passed by the
Consolidation Officer. A revision being preferred by the
private opposite parties, the revision has been allowed
confirming the findings of the original authority involving
validity of the cancellation deed.
Highlighting his objections to the order of the
revisional authority, Shri Rath, learned counsel for the
petitioner raised two grounds, first, there being a
question involving the validity of the cancellation of the
gift deed, it was incumbent on the authorities deciding
such matters to get into the conditions and then
considering the rival contentions to arrive at the findings.
For the failure of the original authority as well as the
revisional authority on getting into such important
questions, Shri Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner
substantiating his first ground contended that both the
authorities have failed in discharging their duties vested
with them.
Shri Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner taking
this Court to the second limb of the argument submitted
that even looking to the findings of the revisional
3
authority, it appears, the revisional authority has
discussed nothing before jumping to such conclusion.
Shri Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, in
the above premises, made a request to this Court for this
Court interfering in the order of the revisional authority
and in the interest of justice, the matter should be
remitted back to the revisional authority for
redetermination of the issue.
Shri Sahoo, learned counsel for the contesting
private opposite parties on the other hand, taking this
Court to the observation of the original authority as well
as the revisional authority submitted that both the
authorities having gone into such aspects and for the
discussions involving the matter, submitted that the
authorities have applied their minds in appropriate spirit.
However, in course of submission Shri Sahoo, made a fair
submission that though the revisional order as well as
the order passed by the original authority appears not so
elaborated, but looking to the position of the persons
dealing with such matter, it is quite obvious that they
cannot go for such elaborate discussion. It is in the
above, premises, Shri Sahoo, the learned counsel
submitted that there being no infirmity in the impugned
order, there is no scope for this Court to interfere in the
revisional order.
Shri K.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government
Advocate supporting the stand taken by Shri Sahoo,
learned counsel for the contesting private opposite party
also made a request for dismissing the writ petition.
Considering the rival contentions of the parties and
4
on reiteration of the factual position indicated
hereinabove, as there is no dispute in respect of the
above position involving the judgment, this Court looking
to the grounds raised involving the validity of the
revocation of the gift deed, looking to the discussions
made by the original authority, finds, the original
authority considering the rival contentions of the parties
has the following observation and findings:
"On scrutiny of the documents, it is
found that the Gift deed which has been
subsequently cancelled vide deed No.1896
dated 27.02.1973. Hence, such gift deed is
not acceptable. Further, it is quite apparent
from the evidence as well as the documents
that the objector is in possession of the suit
land since his purchase as per different
deeds and not the O.P. The possession of the
objector has also been reflected in the M.S.
ROR in remarks column. Hence, in view of
the purchase and possession, the claim of
the objector is genuine and hence allowed.
Correct the L.R. as per my Oriya order."
Similarly, looking to the revisional order at
Annexure-1, this Court finds, the revisional Court
immediately after discussing the case of the parties,
straightway jumped to its findings as available at page 12
of the brief. Reading of both the orders of the original as
well as revisional authority, this Court finds, there has
been practically no endeavour to find-out as to whether,
there has been any condition in the gift deed for enabling
a party to go for revocation of the gift deed for
noncompliance of the same.
In the circumstances, but however, considering
that there has been no effort by the revisional authority
5
on the above question, this Court interfering in the
revisional order vide Annexure-1, sets aside the same and
remits the matter back to the revisional authority for re-
adjudication of the revision by attending to the particular
issue as follows "Whether the gift deed dated
12.04.1962 was having any condition and if so as to
whether the conditions have been violated or not?".
Before parting with the case, this Court makes an
observation that the validity of the order of the
Consolidation Officer will now be dependant on the fresh
adjudication of the revision by the revisional authority.
Since the matter is decided in presence of both the
parties, both the parties are directed to appear before the
revisional authority on 23rd of July, 2018 along with
certified copy of this order facilitating the revisional
authority to re-adjudicate the revision.
The writ petition succeeds, but however, with an
order of remand.
............................
(Biswanath Rath, J.) Ayas 6