Arnapurna Tripathy Vs. Commissioner, Consolidation and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a..........the order of the deputy director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. after examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. admittedly the order of the deputy director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. the consolidation operations were over in the village long back. that apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by this court.5. considering all these facts, this court disposes of the writ petition declining to interfere with the impugned order annexure 3 passed by the joint commissioner. this court, however, grants liberty to the petitioner to approach the civil court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.

Judgment:

ORDER

A.S. Naidu, J.

1. Heard.

The Order Dated 25-1-2006 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation in Consolidation Revision No. 126 of 2004 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The said Revision Case had been filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. It appears that after the village in which the disputed lands situated came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, Objection Cases were filed before the concerned Consolidation Officer who directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the present opposites 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director, Bhadrak. Both sides, as it appears from the order-sheets, entered into compromise at the Appellate stage and on the basis of their compromise the Deputy Director disposed of the appeal on compromise. The said order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision by any party, but then sixteen years thereafter the aforesaid revision petition was filed. The Joint Commissioner being the revisional authority came to find that the delay in filing the said revision petition had not been explained and that the order of the Deputy Director based on compromise could not be assailed after sixteen years.

2. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, notice of the appeal was never served on the Petitioner. He further submitted that the compromise was fraud, inasmuch as the Petitioner had never put her signature on the compromise petition. He further submitted that the Petitioner had no knowledge that the order of the Consolidation Officer had been differed by the Appellate authority.

3. All the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3. He submitted that on the basis of a compromise the land records were prepared and further proceedings were started. The ROR was prepared and issued and the Petitioner never raised any objection at any stage thereafter. After lapse of sixteen years being influenced by the enemies of Opposite Party No. 3, the aforesaid revision petition had been filed before the Joint Commissioner.

4. This Court heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials. The order of the Deputy Director clearly reveals that all the parties had appeared before him and had filed the compromise petition. After examining the said petition and being satisfied that the same contained the signatures of all the parties, he passed the order. Admittedly the order of the Deputy Director was not assailed in revision for long sixteen years. The consolidation operations were over in the village long back. That apart, fraud is a bundle of facts which has not been established and cannot also be decided by this Court.

5. Considering all these facts, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition declining to interfere with the impugned order Annexure 3 passed by the Joint Commissioner. This Court, however, grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking necessary relief and also to establish if any fraud had been practised on her.