Remanded

Bira Kishore Panda v. Commnr.Consolidn.

Orissa HC5 Jan 2017OJC/8938/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, by way of a writ petition, quashed an ex parte order passed in a land consolidation revision. The court held that the order was unsustainable as it was passed without hearing the petitioner and remanded the matter to the revisional authority for fresh adjudication after affording a hearing opportunity.

What did the court decide?

The order passed in the revision was quashed and the matter remitted to the revisional authority for fresh adjudication within three months after hearing the petitioner and Opposing Party 4.

Assailing the impugned order, Sri Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner, sub mits that there is no dispute that Krushna, Naba, Bira and Balunkeswar were four brothers and sons of one Gangadhara. In 1962 there was a family settlement between Krushna, Naba and Balunk eswar deciding 1/3rd share of the property in favour of each of the above three in clear ignor ance of the claim of Bira, the other surviving brother. In the meantime, there have been some developments by way of sale of share by Balunkeswar to Krushna and then Krushna and Naba selli ng their shares to O.P.4, Balunkaswar.

In the meantime, the petitioner being aggrieved by the family settlement involving only three brothers filed T.S.No.53/89, which suit was ultimately decided on compromise with allotment of 1/4th share in favour of each of the four brothers in the meantime in the suit. D uring consolidation operation, the petitioner filed Objection Case Nos.3287/661 and 3288/662 a gainst the purchasers, who have purchased the disputed property from the brothers of the petit ioner. The Objection Cases were dismissed by the A.C.O. after holding that he has no jurisdict ion to decide such case. The appeal being initiated by the petitioner against the orders passe d in the Objection Case was allowed with an order of remand to the Consolidation Officer for r e-adjudication of the matter. By remand, the Consolidation Case was allowed in

Drawing the attention of this Court to the revisional order, Sri Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that on the date of hearing, the present petitioner for bona fide reason could not appear and the matter has been decided ex parte. He further contend ed that had the petitioner attended the revision, the order passed in the revision would have been otherwise. It is under the circumstance, Sri Routray submitted in the interest of justice and as the matter involved a civil right of a party over the property, the matter should have been decided on contest.

Sri Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, on the other han d, though did not support the ex parte decision by the court, but submitted that for the obser vations made therein, there is no scope for interfering in the impugned order.

Considering the rival contentions of the parties and after going through the serie s of developments taking place in the meantime, particularly the compromise decree involving t he brothers attained in T.S. No.53/89, this Court finds, had the petitioner contested the matt er, he would have been in a position to convince the revisional authority. Further since the i mpugned order is an ex parte one, this Court finds, the order in absence of hearing of the pet itioner is not sustainable and under the circumstance, while interfering with the impugned ord er, this Court remits the matter back to the revisional authority for fresh adjudication of th e Consolidation Revision No.1059/98 after providing opportunity of hearing to the

Bira Kishore Panda v. Commnr.Consolidn.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bira Kishore Panda v. Commnr.Consolidn.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagannath Behera Vs State of Odisha

Santosh Ku.Soni Vs State of Odisha

Shakeel Ahmed Khan Vs State of Odisha

Sarita Ghadei Vs Uttam Ghadai

Puspanjali Vs Collector, Gajapati

Md.Asraf@Asraf Vs Safida Bidi