WP(C)/24573/2026 of SRIKANTA KUMAR DAS Vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CONSOLIDATION AND SETTLEMENT, KENDRAPARA on 1 September 2026

ORDER

01.09.2026

01.

1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

2. Both the matters are taken together as the issues raised in both the cases are identical and common.

3. The Petitioners have impugned the order dated 02.02.2026 passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement, Kendrapara in R.C. No.390 of 2015.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the subject land being the agricultural and homestead land of the Petitioners, originally belongs to Naunidhi Das, their grandfather and the dwelling house of the Petitioners is standing over the same. The Petitioners have referred to the family pedigree mentioned in Paragraph No.4 of the Petition. He also submits that Golak Ch. Das, the co-sharer, on whom the property devolved was serving at Calcutta and was staying there with his family.

5. Taking advantage of the absence of Golak Ch. Das, the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3, who are husband and wife, without the knowledge of Golak Ch. Das, fraudulently managed to obtain Ac. 6.26-5 decimal of land in their favour by virtue of Registered Gift Deed No. 2091 dated 31.03.1975, and also obtained an area of Ac. 0.88, including the homestead land, in their favour vide Registered Sale Deed No. 641 dated 31.10.1975. The common ancestor, Naunidhi Das, died in 1975. After the death of his father, Golak Ch. Das returned to his village and continued to reside there permanently and remained in possession of the subject land under the Gift Deed and Sale Deed. Since Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 had illegally obtained the Sale Deed and Gift Deed in their favour behind the back of Golak Ch. Das, they could not get possession of the purchased and gifted land.

6. Learned Counsel further submits that Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3, thereafter, filed Title Suit No. 138 of 1978 against Golak Ch.

Das and two of his major sons, namely, Srikant Das and Srimant Das, praying for a permanent injunction before the Court of the Munsif, Kendrapara, and managed to suppress the summons, as a result of which the defendants could not be made aware of the suit, and an ex parte decree was passed on 01.03.1976. Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 also filed Execution Case No. 39 of 1976. Upon notice to the father of the Petitioners this time, it was objected to by Golak Ch. Das, who filed Misc. Case No. 297 of 1976 under Section 47 of the CPC and vide order dated 16.01.1977, the said Misc. Case No. 297 of 1976 was allowed and Execution Case was dismissed as not maintainable.

7. Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal of the Execution, registered as Misc. Appeal No. 3 of 1977, before the Sub-Judge, Kendrapara, challenging the order dated 16.01.1977 passed in Misc. Case No. 297 of 1976, but that was allowed to be abated.

8. While the position stood thus, consolidation operations commenced in the village, and once again, the Petitioners were unaware of such operations and, as such, could not take steps for recording the subject land in their favour. As a result, Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 managed to get their names recorded in respect of the subject land, and Hal RoR Khata No. 1199 was published in their names. Later, having come to know about the consolidation operations and the recording of the RoR in the names of Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3, the Petitioners moved Revision Case No. 390 of 2015 before the Commissioner, Consolidation, Orissa, Cuttack, which was subsequently transferred to the Court of the Additional Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement, Kendrapara, for disposal. The learned Additional Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement, disposed of the said Revision Case No. 390 of 2015 vide order dated 02.02.2026, dismissing the prayer of the Petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement, the Petitioners have moved the present writ petition.

9. While considering the correctness of the impugned order, the moot question needs to be looked in to is with regard to the order passed by the learned Munsif in Title Suit No. 138 of 1975, whereby the Petitioners were permanently injuncted from entering upon the subject land and/or interfering with the same in any manner whatsoever. Although the Petitioners had the occasion to challenge the execution proceeding initiated by Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 before the learned Munsif, and the execution proceeding having been decided against Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3, technically in favour of the Petitioners, the Petitioners never took any steps to set aside the order passed in Title Suit No. 138 of 1975. As a result, the order of permanent injunction passed by the learned Munsif is still operating against the Petitioners. Undeniably, the said order could not have been set aside by the Consolidation Authority in its proceeding.

10. The Petitioners also did not take any steps, upon dismissal of the execution proceeding, for restitution of possession in respect of the property covered by the order of injunction and the matter the matter could not have been brought within the fold of the Consolidation Act by going into the merits of the case with regard to the right, title and possession. From the prayer made by the Petitioners before the Commissioner, Consolidation, as noted hereinabove, appears the same is confined only to the correction of the Hal RoR on the basis of possession. The learned Additional Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement, Kendrapara, while disposing of the revision, therefore, has directed the parties to take recourse to law before the competent court on the basis of possession followed by title.

11. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, while assailing the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement, Kendrapara, inter alia, submitted that the Court has erred in law in directing the Petitioners to approach the competent court to establish their title on the basis of long and continuous possession. True, the Commissioner has not been able to substantiate his view in elaborate terms, but then, the order passed by the competent Civil Court directing the Petitioners not to interfere with the possession of Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3, being permanent in nature and purported to have been passed under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, could not have been averted by the Consolidation Authority either even if it would have proceeded to decide the title of the Petitioners.

12. In that view of the matter, even though the impugned order is not technically correct, this Court is not in a position to set aside the said order but to concur substantially with the same on the premise that any proceeding undertaken by the Consolidation Authority touching upon the title of the subject property could not have attained finality in the absence of an order setting aside the permanent injunction granted by the Civil Court in favour of Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 qua the Petitioners.

13. In the fitness of circumstances, for all purposes, the Petitioners have to approach the competent Civil Court in order to establish their right, title and interest, of course, subject to limitation.

14. While disposing of the writ petitions, therefore, this Court, even if is not in complete agreement with the reasons assigned by the learned Additional Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement, Kendrapara, in disposing of the proceeding before it, the same cannot be held illegal per se to set aside for the reasons assigned hereinabove. As a necessary corollary, the Petitions being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

Bijay Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 02-Sep-2026 16:15:13 Signature Not Verified