BAURIBANDHU ACHARYA Vs. COMMISSIONER CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decision of the Commissioner, Consolidation, Orissa dated 11th June, 2001 in Consolidation Revision Case No. 1763 of 1998, Annexure -2, is assailed in this Writ application.

(2.) THE said Revision Case was filed under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the present petitioners inter alia challenging the order dated 9th November, 1998 passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Jagatsinghpur in Appeal Case No. 37 of 1997. The said appeal arose out of an order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Jagatsinghpur in Remand Revision Case No. 687 of 1998.

(3.) TO appreciate the dispute which has a chequered career, the necessary facts bereft of unnecessary details may be noted as follows : - Admittedly one Nilakantha Acharya was the original owner and Baheldar in respect of the disputed lands. Said Nilakantha Acharya was the father of Balaram Acharya and Parikshita Acharya. It appears from the decision passed by the Civil Court that on 19.12.1924 both Balaram and Parikshita had taken some loan from Baman Acharya, grandfather of the present opposite party No. 3. For securing the said loan, the disputed property was mortgaged through a registered deed of mortgage. Aforesaid Balaram and Parikshit having failed to repay the loan, Baman Acharya filed a suit, being Mortgage Suit No. 575 of 1929. The said suit was decreed in favour of Baman Acharya on 30.11.1930, vide Annexure B/3. Thereafter Baman Acharya had preferred an appeal being dissatisfied with the rate of interest decreed. The said Appeal was registered as Munsif Appeal No. 442 of 1930 before the then Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack. On 1.3.1932 the said Appeal was disposed of and the following decree was passed, vide Annexure -C/3 : -'That the appeal be and the same is hereby allowed for interest at the stipulated rate from the date after the expiry of the stipulated period of time, i.e. from 19th February, 1926 till date of suit and thereafter at 6 p.c.p.a till realization, and for costs of both Courts with future interest at 6 p.c.p.a. till realization. No interest is allowed at the stipulated rate up to the period of grace as it is rather high. The defendants must pay the decretal amount within four months from the date of decree and in default the respondents' right to redeem will be lost and appellant will recover possession of the mortgaged property.'