JUDGMENT
G.B. Pattnaik, J.
1. The order of opp. party No. 1. the Commissioner of Consolidation dated 27-3-1991. annexed as Annexure-5, disposing of six consolidation revision cases together is being challenged by this single writ petition on the ground that the revisional authority erroneously reversed the decision of the appellate authority and confirmed the decision of the original authority on non-consideration of the materials on record and on erroneous view of the legal position.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ application may be stated hereunder :
Nityananda Panigrahi, petitioner No. 1, filed four objection cases under Section 9 (3) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act’) against different opposite parties inter alia on the ground that though the objector has purchased the property under registered sale deed but the property in the land register stands recorded in the name of the opposite parties. All these four objection cases were heard together and disposed of by a common order by the Consolidation Officer and all the objection cases were rejected. The order of the Consolidation Officer has been annexed as Annexure-3. The objector claimed title to the disputed land on the basis of sale deed executed by Sara, widow of the recorded owner Hari Panigrahi on 3-5-1929 to Achuti Panigrahi and three others. But the land stood recorded in the land register in the name of the purchasers in Court auction. As a money suit had been decreed against Hari Panigrahi (M.S. No. 1213/1918) on 2-12-1918 and in execution of the said decree the property was sold on 16-11-1928 and the sale was confirmed on 2-1-1929 and the purcha-sers obtained survey certificate and got their names entered in the tenant’s ledger on 2-8-1931. Against the aforesaid order of the Consolidation Officer four appeals were preferred by the objector which were registered as Appeal Case Nos. 178, 179, 180 and 181 of 1985 and they were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment on 28-5-1986, annexed as Annexure-4. The appellate authority allowed three appeals, namely, Appeal Case Nos. 178, 180 and 181 of 1985 and directed recording of L.R. Plot Nos. 882/4808, 889, 884 and 883 of L. R. Khata No. 226 and Plot Nos. 833, 853 and 856 of L.R. Khata No. 251, and Plot Nos. 879 and 839 of L.R. Khata No. 85 to the names of the appellants. He, however, dismissed Appeal Case No. 179/85 which related to claim of right over plot Nos. 829, 831, 882, 885 and 832/ 4807 on the ground that a claim of sikimi right cannot be granted by the consolidation authority. Against the aforesaid common order of the appellate authority six consolidation revision cases were filed by different persons who were respondents before the appellate authority The Commissioner of Consolidation disposed of all these revision cases together by order dated 27-3-1991 and set aside the orders of the appellate authority passed in Appeal Case Nos. 178, 180 and 181 of 1981 and confirmed the orders of the Consolidation Officer and so far as the order passed in Consolidation Appeal Case No. 179/85 by the appellate authority is concerned, the said order was sustained. The present writ application has been filed challenging the aforesaid orders of the revisional authority.
3. At the hearing of the writ application Mr. Routray appearing for the opposite parties raises a preliminary objection the a single writ petition is not maintainable against different revisional orders of the revisional authority arising out of different objection cases filed under Section 9 (3) of the Act even though the revision cases were disposed of together.
4. Mr. Mishra for the petitioner, on the other hand, contends that since the question of law involved is similar, a single writ petition would be maintainable.
5. A similar question came up for consideration before a Bench of this Court in the case of Titagarh Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Anr.(AIR 1975) Ori. 90 and this Court held that a single writ petition seeking to quash two different orders passed in two different proceedings cannot be maintained. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion the Bench of this Court had relied upon the earlier decision of the Patna High Court in AIR 1953 Patna 653 and Allahabad High Court in AIR 1965 Allahabad 517. In the Patna case AIR 1958 Patna 653 : Biswaranjan Bose v. Honorary Secy., Ram Krishna Mission. Vivekanand Society, Jamshedpur) their Lordships had observed :
“Separate applications must be made for issue of separate writs to quash separate orders otherwise, on one application. If it succeeds, several separate writs will have to be issued and that will load to an absurd position.”
In Allahabad case (AIR 1965 All 517 Khurjawala Buckles Manufacturing Co. v. Commr. Sales Tax. UP.) a single writ petition had been filed for quashing two assessment orders relating to two different assessment years and their Lordships have held that a single petition was not maintainable. In the case in hand when different objection cases had been filed against different persons by the petitioner under Section 9(3) of the Act. the identity of interest cannot be the same and, therefore. when different objection cases were disposed of though by a common order and were challenged by several appeals and further those appellate orders challenged by several revisions, a single writ petition against the revisional orders passed in different revision cases could not be sustained. It is no doubt true that whether in a given case a single petition would be permitted or not depends upon in the facts and circumstances or the case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down but the relief claimed not being on the same cause of action a single petition is not maintainable The Rajasthan High Court in AIR 1974 Rajasthan 193 (Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur v. M/s. Resouria Ice Factory Ltd.) held that a single petition against the decisions of several appeals is not maintainable even if those appeals were decided by a common judgment In a case where income tax authorities had passed separate assessment orders for each assessment year and assessee filed one writ petition against all the orders, it was held by the Delhi High Court that a single petition is not maintainable. (See 1986 (158) I.T.R. 303-A. M. Sarvaria v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Delhi and Anr.). To the same effect is the view of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in (1988) 171 ITR 498 (Krishan Chand Girdhari Lal and Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar I and Anr.) The Madras High Court also has taken the similar view in (1978) 2 MLJ 66(A.P. Vasuoevan v. State of Madras, represented by the Commissioner for Land Revenue, Food Production and Commercial Taxes, Board of Revenue, Madras). In view of the aforesaid position of law, in our considered opinion, a single writ petition is not maintainable and therefore, the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the opposite parties has to be sustained and the writ application will fall on that score.
6. Even on the merit of the case, we also see no justification for our interference with the conclusion and findings of the revisional authority. The revisional authority on analysing the materials on record has come to the conclusion that the auction purchasers in Court auction took possession of the disputed land in Execution Case No. 5151 1921 wherein the decree against the recorded owner husband of Sara Bewa in M. A. 1213/18 was being executed and in fact the land stood recorded in their names in the record of rights. The fact that the auction purchasers are continuing in possession of the land since 16-11-1928 goes against the petitioner’s case of purchase from Sara, a maintenance holder under the registered sale deed dated 3-5-1920. That part there is no material or finding that Sara had the necessity to sell the land in question. The finding of possession in favour of the auction purchasers from the date of their purchase in 1928 as recorded by the revisional authority cannot be interfered with by this Court in a writ of certiorari, the said finding being on a question of fact and we do not find any error in the aforesaid finding of the revisional authority. The conclusion of a statutory tribunal cannot be interfered with by the High Court in a writ of certiorari only when the High Court finds an error apparent on the face of the order. An error can be said to be apparent on the face of the order when the tribunal records a finding ignoring the material evidence or considers inadmissible evidence or has no jurisdiction or the finding is based on no evidence. Judging from that standpoint and on scrutinising the impugned order under Annexure-5 we are unable to find out any error of taw apparent on the face of the said order which could be corrected by this Court in a writ of certiorari. Thus on merits also the impugned order is immune from interference . In the net result, therefore, the writ application fails and is dismissed. There would be no order as to costs.
r.K. Patra, J.
I agree.