Chuladhara Tandi Vs Addl.Commissioner

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the two sons of the ailing Opp. Party in Revision Case No.798 of 2015 as her agents praying for quashing the final order dated 23.11.2015 passed in Revision Case No.798 of 2015 by the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur on the ground that, the said Revision Case No.798 of 2015 has been allowed on dated 23.11.2015 (Annexure-1) without giving any opportunity of being heard to the Opp. Party in that Revision Case No.798 of 2015.

¶21

2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-Opp. Parties.

¶22

3. In order to have a clarity in this matter, the orders passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur on dated 23.11.2015 as well as its previous orders dated 08.04.2015, 25.05.2015, 05.10.2015 in Revision Case No.798 of 2015 are depicted hereunder:

¶23

WP(C) No.22990 of 2016

¶24

Page 2 of 6

¶25

08.04.2015

¶26

“This Revision is filed under Section 37(1) of O.C.H & P.F.L. Act.

¶27

Issue notice to the parties concern for hearing on Admission Case to 25.05.2015.”

¶28

Addl. Commissioner.

¶29

25.05.2015

¶30

“Due to scorching heat and Resolution made by District Bar Association, the case is adjourned to 20.07.2015.”

¶31

Addl. Commissioner.

¶32

20.07.2015

¶33

“None present.

¶34

Case to 05.10.2015”

¶35

Addl. Commissioner.

¶36

05.10.2015

¶37

“Petitioner present. Heard. Document verified. Case to 23.11.2015 for orders.”

¶38

Addl. Commissioner.

¶39

23.11.2015

¶40

“Revision Case No.798 of 2015 is arised under Section 37(1) of the OCH & PFL Act, 1972 claiming for recording of the suit land as purchased vide a registered sale deed. Heard.

¶41

On consideration of the matter, I find the instant sale as valid one complying there with all the legal necessities needed for a valid sale and therefore, is operative in the eye of law.

¶42

In the result, the revision is hereby allowed.

¶43

Send an extract of this order to concerned Addl. SubCollector for correction of the records for the suit land and issue the patta for the same in favour of the legal heir of the deceased Praja Sahu after verification of all linked documents original.”

¶44

Addl. Commissioner.

¶45

4. The above impugned orders vide Annexure-1 passed by

¶46

the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur do not reveal about giving any opportunity of

¶47

WP(C) No.22990 of 2016

¶48

Page 3 of 6

¶49

hearing to the Opp. Party in disposing of the Revision Case No.798 of 2015 through the impugned order dated 23.11.2015 (Annexure-1).

¶50

5. As such, the impugned order in Revision Case No.798 of 2015 has been passed on dated 23.11.2015 by the Opp. Party No.1 violating the principles of natural justice.

¶51

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been

¶52

clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:

¶53

I. In a case between High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vrs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2025 (1) Civ.L.J. (SC) 40 (Para No.16) that, any order passed without complying the principles of natural justice is to be treated as illegal.

¶54

II. In a case between Shivaji vrs. Parwatibai and others reported in 2025(2) Civil Law Judgment(S.C.)-528 that, when a case is disposed of against any party without giving him/her an opportunity of hearing, such disposal deserves to be deprecated in view of 2023 SCC online S.C.-1210 between Suresh Lataruji Ramteke vrs. Sau.Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar and others , for which, matter is required to be remitted back for its decision afresh.

¶55

6. Therefore, there is justification under law for making interference with the impugned order passed on dated 23.11.2015 in Revision Case No.798 of 2015 by the Opp. Party No.1 through this writ petition filed by the petitioners.

¶56

WP(C) No.22990 of 2016

¶57

Page 4 of 6

¶58

7. As such there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioners. The same must succeed.

¶59

8. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed on contest.

¶60

The impugned order dated 23.11.2015 (Annexure-1) passed in Revision Case No.798 of 2015 by the Opp. Party No.1 is quashed.

¶61

The matter vide Revision Case No.798 of 2015 is remitted

¶62

back to the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur (Opp. Party No.1) to decide the same afresh after giving opportunity of being heard to the Opp. Party in Revision Case No.798 of 2015 within a period of two months from the date of filing of the certified copy of this Judgment by the petitioners before the Opp. Party No.1.

¶63

9. The petitioners are directed to file the certified copy of this Judgment in Revision Case No.798 of 2015 for disposing of that Revision Case No.798 of 2015 as per the observations made in this Judgment.

¶64

WP(C) No.22990 of 2016

¶65

Page 5 of 6

¶66

10. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of finally.

¶67

(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE

¶68

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 11 .12. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak Sr. Stenographer

¶69

Signature Not Verified