Biswanath Rath, J. - (1.) All these three writ applications have been filed by three writ petitioners involved herein assailing the impugned order at Annexure-13 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation involving Revision Case Nos.754/1988, 365/95 and 366/95 disposed of in a common order in exercise of revisional power under Section 36 of the OCH & PFL Act, 1972. All the three cases though involved common facts and common question of law were heard separately by the appellate forum and disposed of by separate judgments. But however, the three Revisions though instituted involving disposal of three Appeals independently but were heard and disposed of by the revisional forum in the common impugned order giving rise to three writ petitions involved herein. For the involvement of common facts and common dispute, on consent of all the parties, all these three writ petitions are herein taken up together and decided by this common judgment. To avoid confusion, this Court takes a concise brief of facts involving the cases which read as follows :-
(2.) Objection Case No.2139/1280 involved in Consolidation Appeal Case No.117/84 (against Kadambini Pradhan) and ended in Consolidation Revision No.754/88. Above Objection Case was initiated by Jogeswar Nayak, O.P.2 herein. The other case involving Objection Case No.2967/1899 involved in Consolidation Appeal Case No.20/95 (against Kishore Kumar Agarwalla and Kadambini Pradhan) and ended in Consolidation Revision No.365/95. The third Objection Case No.2968/1900 landed in Consolidation Appeal Case No.19/95 (against Raj Kumar Agarwalla and Kadambini Pradhan) and ended in Consolidation Revision No.366/95. All the Appeals were at the instance of Jogeswar Nayak, whereas the Revisions are by the respective petitioners ended in a reversing revisional order.
(3.) Facts as borne involving the cases stated herein above are H.S.Khata No.199, H.S. Plot No.135 area Ac.13.75 decimals of Village-Kalamati was under Baleswar Ray-Lambodar Gountia. Gounti system was abolished pursuant to a Notification issued under Section 3 of O.E.A. Act since 1.4.1960. The kisam of the land was mentioned as "other waste land". Finding no tenant, no rent roll was filed and the land ultimately vested in the State free from all encumbrances. Subsequently, H.S. Plot No.135 became several plots during Major Settlement operation and the disputed land relates to M.S. Plot No.653 measuring Ac.0.65 decimals. During M.S. operation, Lease Case No.48/20 of 1966 was started considering Pravatini Mohanty, as a landless, the disputed Plot No.653 along with some undisputed plots was settled in favour of Pravatini Mohanty wife of Premananda Mohanty following the provision of the O.G.L.S. Act. Consequently, possession was also delivered to Pravatini. While the matter stood thus, O.P.2 filed Rent Case No.20/295 before the A.S.O. alleging, inter alia, that he had got Ac.1.40 decimals under an unregistered lease deed dated 30.8.1935 and by another Patta dated 25.9.1939 involving Ac.4.80 decimals from H.S. Plot No.135. Since the claim was made on the basis of Hat Patta disbelieving the Hat Patta, the claim of the petitioners was turned down but however the Amin's report discloses that no possession since 1966 involving the above land was made in favour of O.P.2, Jogeswar Nayak. On 12.9.1970 final Major Settlement Patta was published in the name of Pravatini Mohanty but in the remarks column forcible possession of O.P.2 was noted. Pravatini was going on paying rent. In the meantime, the C.O. in his order dated 7.5.84 considering the petition under Section 9(1) of Survey & Settlement Act by Kadambini Pradhan allowed the 9(1) proceeding by his order dated 7.5.1984 recording the L.R. Plot No.1509 with an area Ac.0.40 decimals in favour of Kadambini Pradhan. An allegation is being made that this transfer in the year 1980 was effected without permission of the Consolidation Authority as by this time Consolidation operation was already in force in Village-Kalamati. Consolidation Appeal Case No.117 of 1984 being filed, this Appeal was dismissed giving rise to the Consolidation Revision No.754/86 filed by Kadambini and in the meantime, Kadambini transferred the case land in favour of Raj Kumar Agarwalla and Kishore Kumar Agarwalla after entering into the Permission Case No.391/81. Purchasers, Raj Kumar Agarwalla and Kishore Kumar Agarwalla filed Objection Case Nos.2969/1901 and 2968/1900. Since the lands in question were non-consolidable, Objection Cases were allowed in favour of the purchasers and orders were passed to record the land in their favour. In the meantime, Kadambini had already filed Objection Case No.2139/1280 before the Consolidation Officer, Sambalpur to delete the name of Jogeswar. This Objection Case was allowed. Consequently, Jogeswar filed three Appeals bearing Consolidation Appeal No.117/84 against Kadambini involving the Objection Case at the instance of Kadambini, Consolidation Appeal No.20/95 again by Jogeswar involving Kishore Kumar Agarwalla and Kadambini and Consolidation Appeal No.19/95 by Jogeswar against Raj Kumar Agarwalla and Kadambini. All the three Appeals having been dismissed by independent judgments, three Revisions, vide Consolidation Revision Nos.754/88, 366/95 and 365/95 were filed. All the Revisions having been allowed, vide a common order involving Annexure-13 giving rise to file three writ applications indicated herein above. It be stated here that though the Consolidation Revision No.754/1988 involved Jogeswar vrs. Kadambini but however instead of Kadambini filing the writ application bearing O.J.C. No.6014/98, this writ petition is at the instance of Raj Kumar Agarwalla and Kishore Kumar Agarwalla but however making Kadambini as an opposite party.;