High Court of Orissa
Case Details
IN THE E HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P. (C) No.23553 of 2019 Duryodhan Thap hapa & others …. Pe Petitioner Advocate Mr. A.P.Bose, Ad -Versus- State of Odisha a and others …. Opposite Mr. C.M.Sin site parties .Singh, ASC CORA MR. J RAM: JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. 04. 1. 2.
Decision
ORDER 12.12.2024 Heard M d Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioners. ers. Mr. Sing ingh, learned ASC for the State submits that a at a copy of the writ petition ion is not yet served on him. In reply, Mr. Bose ose, learned counsel for the he petitioner submits that it is already served ved on 29th November, 2019 019. 3. In view iew of the above, notwithstanding absence e of the private opposite site parties, the Court is inclined to dispos pose of the matter, as it is a a year old one, by the following order. 4. Instant w nt writ petition is filed by the petitioner challen llenging the impugned order rder under Annexure-1 passed in connecti ection with Revenue Misc. C . Case No. 04 of 2019 on the grounds stated. 5. Mr. Bos Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner woul ould submit that on the basis asis of a sale deed and decree of a Civil Cou ourt in C.S. No. 89 of 2012 012, the petitioners approached the authorit ority below seeking mutation tion and the same was allowed by order d r dated 15th January, 2018, h , however, it was reviewed later at the instan tance of the private opposite site parties followed by the impugned o order i.e. Annexure-1 serie eries. It is further submitted that delay was c s condoned without any not notice to the petitioners and thereafter, oppos posite party No.2, on the p e premise that a suit in C.S. No. 89 of 201 2012 to be pending in the the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior r Division), Patnagarh, revok voked the mutation and recalled the RoR, whi which is not legally tenable, hence, therefore, the same is liable to be i e interfered with and set asid aside with consequential directions issued for r or rehearing of the matter wit with respect to delay condonation as well as o s on merit. 6. State. 7. Recorde rded the submission of Mr. Singh, learned ASC ASC for the In cours urse of hearing Mr. Bose, learned counsel sel for the petitioners subm bmits that an objection was filed in the procee ceeding but the same was n s not duly examined and was followed by t y the recall order i.e. Annexu exure-1 series. 8. From th the order dated 15th January, 2018 in Mutat tation Case No. 1118 of 2017 017, it is made to reveal that such mutation wa was applied for by the petitio titioners and it was based on the sale deed and nd a decree and the same w e was allowed but subsequently, it was re recalled in Revenue Misc. C Case No. 04 of 2019 by order dated 24th Ap April, 2019 with the record rd of right directed to be corrected. The grou round upon which such reca ecall with respect to the RoR issued in favou vour of the petitioners is on on the premise that a suit in C.S. No. 89 89 of 2012 pending between een the parties. Since the claim over the sched hedule land is on the strengt ngth of a sale deed and decree of a Civil C Court and thereafter, it was was allowed with the issuance of RoR, objectio ction of the petitioner is tha that the same could not have been reviewed wed with a recall order dated ated 24th April, 2019. The Court finds that the o he objection to the delay co y condonation and also on merit was filed iled by the petitioners as per per Annexure-3. No decision has been rendere ered by the authority below, w, namely, opposite party No.2 on such obje bjection. In Page 2 of 3 Pa such view of th f the matter, the Court reaches at a conclus clusion that opposite party N ty No.2 ought to have dealt with the objec bjection i.e. Annexure-3. Con Considering the plea of the petitioners with r th regard to condonation of of delay and on merit and whether, such ch recall by order dated 24t th April, 2019 was permissible, it should ha have been duly examined b d by opposite party No.2 which has not taken ken place at all, hence, theref refore, the matter should be remanded back fo k for a fresh consideration in in the presence of the private opposite parti arties as the same would rath ather serve the purpose and meet the ends of ju of justice. 9. Hence, i e, it is ordered. 10. In the r e result, the writ petition stands disposed o of with a direction to opp pposite party No.2 to rehear the matter in co connection with Review Mis Misc. Case No. 04 of 2019 in the presence of of both the sides and to pas pass necessary order considering the objection ion filed by the petitioners. T The Court further directs that the proceeding ding shall be disposed of at th t the earliest preferably within a period of eig eight weeks from the date te receipt of a copy of this order. As a n a necessary corollary, the im impugned order under Annexure-1 series in in Revenue Misc. Case No. o. 04 of 2019 is hereby set aside with th the matter restored to the fi file of opposite party No. 2 for a fresh dispo sposal of the same according t g to law and within the above stipulated perio eriod. 11. A certifie tified copy of this order be issued as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge kabita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 16-Dec-2024 12:02:25 Page 3 of 3 Pa