The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.19208 of 2016 Kandhuni Padhi & Others …. Petitioners Mr. J. Panda, Advocate Raghunath Das & Others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Pattnaik, AGA Mr.Nirakar Behera, Adv. appearing on behalf of Mr. M. Mohanty, Adv. for O.P.1 CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No.
Decision
ORDER 27.09.2024 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dtd.25.06.2004 so passed in S.R.P. Case No.588/2003 by Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-1 and further order passed on 25.06.2005 in Misc. Case No.54/2004 arising out of SRP No.588/2003 on 25.06.2005 by the self-same Opposite Party No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that while considering the claim of private Opposite Party No.1 in SRP No.588 of 2003, though it was found that the land stands recorded in the name of the Govt. vide Plot No.1111, 1155, 1151 and 1153 and two of the plots namely Plot Nos.1111 & 1155 are in possession of the father of the Petitioner, basing // 2 // on a sale deed, but the revision was rejected vide order dtd.25.06.2004 under Annexure-1. 4.1. It is contended that seeking review of the order dtd.25.06.2004, Opposite Party No.1 filed Misc. Case No.54/2004 and the self-same Opposite Party No.2 vide order dtd.25.06.2005 under Annexure-2 while allowing the claim directed the Tahasildar, Sanakhemundi to do the needful. 4.2. It is contended that basing on the order passed on 25.06.2005 under Annexure-2, Tahasildar, Sanakhemundi recorded all the four plots in the name of the private Opposite Party No.1 under Khata No.868/1271 vide Annexure-3. 4.3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that since in course of hearing of the revision petition in S.R.P. No.588/2003, it was found that out of four plots recorded in the name of the Government, two of the plots are in possession of the Petitioner’s father and two in the name of the revision petitioner / Opposite Party No.1, revisional authority-Opposite Party No.2 while considering Misc. Case No.54/2004 and reviewing his own order vide order dtd.25.06.2005 under Annexure-2, should have given an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners. But without giving any opportunity of hearing on the face of the finding available in order dtd.25.06.2004 under Annexure-1, the Misc. Case was disposed of with certain observation and direction. Basing on such observation and direction, all the four plots were recorded in the name of private Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-3 by Tahasildar, Sanakhemundi. Page 2 of 5 // 3 // 4.4. It is contended that since all the four plots which is the subject matter of dispute in the revision was recorded in the name of the State Government under Abadya Jogya Anabadi and the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 prayed for recording of the land to his name and in course of hearing it was found that two of the plots are in possession of the father of the Petitioners basing on a sale deed executed in the year 1973 vide Deed No.2959, on the face of such finding, Petitioners should have given an opportunity of hearing by Opposite Party No.2 while reviewing his own order vide order dtd.25.06.2005, so passed in Misc. Case No.54/2004 under Annexure-2. 4.5. It is accordingly contended that the order dtd.25.06.2005 is required to be interfered with by this Court with passing of an appropriate order in the matter. 5. Mr. N. Behera, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.1 on the other hand contended that after dismissal of the revision by the revisional authority / Opposite Party No.2 vide order dtd.25.06.2004 under Annexure-1, Opposite Party No.1 filed a Misc. Case seeking review of the order dtd.25.06.2004 in Misc. Case No.54/2004. Opposite Party No.2 after giving a detailed hearing and basing on the materials placed disposed of the Misc. Case vide order dtd.25.06.2005 under Annexure-2 with certain observation and direction on the Tahasildar. Basing on the order passed on 25.06.2005, the land was recorded in the name of the Petitioner vide Khata No.868/1271 in Mouza-Podamari under Sanakhemundi Tahasil vide Annexure-3. Page 3 of 5 // 4 // 5.1. It is contended that since in terms of the order dtd.25.06.2005 so passed in Misc. Case No.54/2004, the land has already been recorded in the name of the private Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-3, Petitioner has got no grievance to challenge the order passed under Annexure-2 and the consequential recording of the land under Annexure-3. 6. Mr. S. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand basing on the stand taken in counter affidavit so filed by Opposite party No.4 contended that basing on the order passed in Misc. Case No.54/2004 under Annexure-2, Tahasildar, Sanakhemundi after due verification, has recorded all the four plots in the name of private Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-3. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submissions made and the material placed before this Court it is found that the land in question when was recorded in the name of the Govt., private Opposite Party No.1 challenging such recording of the land in the name of Govt. approached the revisional court by filing an application under Section-15-(b) of the Act in S.R.P. No.588/2003. The said revision was dismissed vide order dtd.25.06.2004 under Annexure-1. 7.1. It is found that while dismissing the revision, learned Commissioner /Opposite Party No.2 found that out of four plots recorded in the name of Government, which was subject matter of challenge in the revision, two plots i.e. Plot Nos.1111 and 1155 are in possession of the Petitioner’s father in terms of the sale deed executed vide Deed No.2959 of 1973. Page 4 of 5 // 5 // 6.2. In view of such finding reflected in order dtd.25.06.2004 under Annexure-1, it is the view of this Court while entertaining the Misc. Case so filed by Opposite Party No.1, seeking review of the order dtd.25.06.2004, Petitioner should have been given an opportunity of hearing by the revisional court-Opposite No.2. Since in the instant case the same has not been followed with passing of order dtd. 25.06.2005 under Annexure-2 in Misc. Case No.54/2004, this Court for the present is inclined to quash order dtd.25.06.2005 so passed by Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-2. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to Opposite Party No.2 to take a fresh decision on the claim of the Opposite Party No.1 after giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners, who happens to be the son of late Ragunath Padhi. This Court directs Opposite Party No.2 to take a fresh decision as directed hereinabove within a period of six(6) months from the date of receipt of this order by giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned. Recording of the land in the name of the Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-3 shall be subject to final order to be passed by the revisional authority as directed by this Court in the present order. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 30-Sep-2024 11:11:07 (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Page 5 of 5