Gayadhar Biswal v. the State of Odisha
Case brief
What is this about?
Single judge High Court quashed a revisional order made under the Orissa Survey & Settlement Act, 1958, as it was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to interested parties. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
What did the court decide?
Impugned order dated 26.10.2017 set aside and matter remitted to Commissioner for fresh adjudication with hearing.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) No.27766 of 2020
- 18.12.2020 Due to outbreak of COVID-19, this matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.
Heard Mr. Srikanta Mahunta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties.
The petitioners in this writ petition seek to assail the order dated 26.10.2017 (Annexure-5) passed by the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack in Revision Petition No.1759 of 2015, whereby he allowed the revision filed by the State Government under Section 15(b) of the Orissa Survey & Settlement Act, 1958 (for short ‘the Act’).
Mr. Mahunta, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that originally the land in question, i.e. Sabik Khata No.61/1, Plot No.335 of Village-Satakania under Sukinda Tahasil in the district of Jajpur (for short ‘the case land’) was recorded in the name of Maharaja Lachhman Das in the Sabik R.O.R. Due to his legal necessity, he sold an area of Ac.0.08 decimals out of Ac.0.10 decimals to one Duryodhan Sahoo vide Registered Sale Deed No.495 dated 02.02.1983. Said Duryodhan Sahoo subsequently for his legal necessity sold the case land, which corresponds to Hal Hal Plot No.715 under Khata No.94, to the father of the present petitioners, namely, Giridhari Biswal vide Registered Sale Deed No.2797 dated 17.10.1995. During settlement operation, the land in question was recorded in the name of Duryodhan Sahoo and R.O.R. was prepared in his
2
name under Annexure-2. After a lapse of 24 years of publication of the R.O.R, the Collector & District Magistrate, Jajpur filed Revision Petition No.1759 of 2015 under Section 15(b) of the Act. The revisional authority without affording any opportunity to the petitioners disposed of the revision vide order dated 26.10.2017(Annexure-5), which is under challenge in this writ petition.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revisional authority was justified in disposing of the revision without affording any opportunity of hearing to the parties involved.
Whether the omission to record the petitioners as necessary parties renders the order void.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Giridhari Biswal and others
- respondent
Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack
- respondent
Collector & District Magistrate, Jajpur
- respondent
State of Odisha
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court