Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK WP(C) No.15839 of 2018 An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. *** Satya Narayan Agarwal (dead) .......…… Petitioners and others -VERSUS- Ganesh Ram Agarwal & Others ……….. Opposite Parties Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Petitioners : Mr. Subham Agrawal (in person) For the Opposite Parties : Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate (for the O.P. No.1) Mr.Gyanalok Mohanty, S.C. (for the O.P. Nos.2 and 3) P R E S E N T:
Legal Reasoning
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA Date of Hearing: 30.06.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 04.07.2025 WP(C) No.15839 of 2018 Page 1 of 8 ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.— J UDGMENT 1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the Petitioners against the Opposite Parties praying for quashing (setting aside) the final order dated 25.08.2014 (Annexure-2) passed in Revision Case No.1181 of 2014 by the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur (O.P. No.2) and the R.o.R. vide Annexure-3, which has been prepared on the basis of Annexure-2. 2. The Opposite Party No.1 in this writ petition i.e. Ganesh Ram Agarwal was the Petitioner in Revision Case No.1181 of 2014 and the Petitioner No.1 in this writ petition i.e. Satya Narayan Agarwal was the Opposite Party in that Revision Case No.1181 of 2014 under Section 37(1) of the O.C.H. and P.F.L. Act, 1972 before the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur (O.P. No.2). 3. When, during the pendency of this writ petition, the Petitioner Satya Narayan Agarwal (who was the O.P. in the WP(C) No.15839 of 2018 Page 2 of 8 Revision Case No.1181 of 2014) expired, then in his place, his LRs i.e. 1(A) to 1(E) have been substituted. 4. The Petitioner Satya Narayan Agarwal filed this writ petition challenging the final order dated 25.08.2014 (Annexure-2) passed in Revision Case No.1181 of 2014 by the O.P. No.2 praying for quashing the same on the ground that, the said impugned order vide Annexure-2 has been passed by the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur (O.P. No.2) without giving any opportunity of being heard to him. 5. I have already heard in person from the side of the Petitioners, the learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 and the learned Standing Counsel for the O.P. Nos.2 and 3. 6. During the course of hearing, it was contended on behalf of the Petitioners that, the impugned order dated 25.08.2014 (Annexure-2) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur (O.P. No.2) itself is going to show about the non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. Because, there is no indication/reflection in anywhere in the said impugned order dated 25.08.2014 (Annexure-2) about giving any opportunity of hearing to the Opposite Party of that Revision Case WP(C) No.15839 of 2018 Page 3 of 8 No.1181 of 2014 i.e. Satya Narayan Agarwal, to which, the learned standing counsel for the O.P. Nos.2 and 3 did not dispute seriously, as, there is no reflection in the impugned order dated 25.08.2014 (Annexure-2) about giving any opportunity of being heard to the Opposite Party of that Revision Case No.1181 of 2014 i.e. Satya Narayan Agarwal. Whereas, the learned counsel Mr. A.P. Bose for the O.P. No.1 vehemently objected to the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioners by filing the order-sheets dated 11.06.2014 and 07.07.2014 of Revision Case No.1181 of 2014, copy of the impugned order vide Annexure-2 and copy of the notices of the Revision Case No.1181 of 2014 contending that, when in spite of receiving the notice in Revision Case No.1181 of 2014, the O.P. thereof i.e. Satya Narayan Agarwal did not chose to participate in the hearing of the Revision Case No.1181 of 2014, for which, the Revision Case No.1181 of 2014 was heard only from the learned counsel for the Petitioner thereof, to which, it cannot be held that, the impugned order vide Annexure-2 has been passed by the O.P. No.2 without giving any opportunity of being heard to the O.P. of that Revision Case No.1181 of 2014. WP(C) No.15839 of 2018 Page 4 of 8 For which, according to him (according to the learned counsel for the O.P. No.1), the question of quashing the impugned order vide Annexure-2 does not arise. Nowhere, there is any indication in the impugned order dated 25.08.2014 (Annexure-2) passed in Revision Case No.1181 of 2014 by the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur (O.P. No.2) about the non- appearance of the O.P. of that Revision Case No.1181 of 2014 in spite of due service of notice upon him as well as about the non-participation (non-cooperation) of the O.P. of that Revision Case No.1181 of 2014 for hearing in spite of calling him through due service of notice upon him. 7. As such, the contents of the Annexure-2 is not going to show about the compliance of the principles of natural justice inviting the O.P. in Revision Case No.1181 of 2014 to participate in the hearing of the said revision. 8. Therefore, the impugned order dated 25.08.2014 vide Annexure-2 passed in Revision Case No.1181 of 2014 itself is going to show about the passing of the same without compliance of the principles of natural justice. 9. The fate/result of any impugned order like the impugned order vide Annexure-2 passed by the O.P. No.2, when, the same will have been passed without the compliance of the natural WP(C) No.15839 of 2018 Page 5 of 8 justice has already been clarified by the Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Johra and Others Vrs. State of Haryana and others reported in 2019 (1) C.C.C. (S.C.) 12 in Para No.8 that, no order can be passed by in any Court in any judicial proceedings against any party to such proceedings without hearing and giving such party an opportunity of hearing. (ii) In a case between High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vrs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2025 (1) Civ.L.J. (S.C.) 40 in Para 16 that, Any order passed without hearing is to be treated illegal as the same has been passed without complying the principles of natural justice. 10. As per the discussions and observations made above, when, it is held that, the impugned order vide Annexure-2 has been passed by the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur (O.P. No.2) in Revision Case No.1181 of 2014 under Section 37(1) of the O.C.H. and P.F.L. Act, 1972 without complying the principles of natural justice, then at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, it is held that, the impugned order dated 25.08.2014 passed in Revision Case No.1181 of 2014 by the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur (O.P. No.2) vide Annexure-2 cannot be WP(C) No.15839 of 2018 Page 6 of 8 sustainable under law. For which, the same is liable to be quashed. 11. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the Petitioners. The same must succeed.
Decision
12. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed on contest. 13. The impugned order dated 25.08.2014 vide Annexure-2 passed in Revision Case No.1181 of 2014 by the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur (O.P. No.2) is quashed. 14. The matter vide Revision Case No.1181 of 2014 is remitted back to the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur (O.P. No.2) for deciding the same afresh as per law after giving opportunity of being heard to the Parties thereof in compliance with the principles of natural justice as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the Parties before the O.P. No.2 in Revision Case No.1181 of 2014. WP(C) No.15839 of 2018 Page 7 of 8 15. The Parties of this writ petition are directed to appear before the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur (O.P. No.2) in Revision Case No.1181 of 2014 on dated 16.07.2025 in order to receive the direction of the O.P. No.2 with regard to the further proceedings of that Revision Case No.1181 of 2014. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of finally. 17. Registry is directed to communicate the copy of this judgment immediately to the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur (O.P. No.2) in reference to Revision Case No.1181 of 2014. (ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack 04.07.2025// Binayak Sahoo Jr. Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BINAYAK SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 04-Jul-2025 15:45:50 WP(C) No.15839 of 2018 Page 8 of 8