Seeta v. Bhagyan

 O.J.C. N
o.9027 of 1998

 11. 16.12.2016 Heard Sri Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State.

 Filing the writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order under Annexure-2
 passed by the appellate authority in deciding a question under Regulation II of 1956. As
sailing the appellate order, Sri Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
 R.M.C. No.28 of 1995 was the case involving present petitioner and the opposite party therei
n. While hearing the original proceeding, Officer on Special Duty (LR), Paralakhemundi clubbe
d R.M.C. No. 28 of 1995 and R.M.C. No.27 of 1995 together and on disposal of the original p
roceeding decided the case in favour of the present petitioner thereby directing for restorati
on of the land in her favour. Appeal appears to have been preferred by the respondent in R.M
.C. No.28 of 1995 and the respondent in R.M.C. No.27 of 1995 but in a common appeal. The case
 involved in both the R.M.C. cases stood on different direction and for the common order in th
e original proceeding, no common appeal was permissible in the eye of law. The appellate auth
ority failed to appreciate the above legal aspect and illegally proceeded in deciding the matt
er taking in to consideration the order involved in both the aforesaid R.M.C. Cases. It is th
us contended that the appeal order is not sustainable and the decision runs contrary to the ca
se involved concerning Seeta Rout and Bhagyam Panda.

 Sri Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand submitted tha
t for the clubbing of both the proceedings, there appears there is no independent consideratio
n of both the cases even at the stage of original proceeding. Further, the appeal should have
 been independently considered for being involved two different ceases altogether R.M.C. Nos.
27 of 1995 and 28 of 1995 instead of common appeal at their instance.

 Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds the original
proceeding involved two cases i.e. R.M.C. No.27 of 1995 and R.M.C. No.28 of 1995 though dispos
ed of vide a common order but involved independent causes of actions involving two different r
espondents. Under the circumstances, no common appeal at the instance of both the respondents
 involving R.M.C. No.27 of 1995 and R.M.C. No.28 of 1995 should have been filed. For the diffe
rent facts involved in both the original proceeding, this Court also finds disposal of the or
iginal proceeding under the impression of common facts was also not proper.