Petitioner challenged an order under Article 226 on grounds of procedural deviation and lack of prejudice due to a date discrepancy.) The court examined the order and records, finding no merit in the challenge. The petition was dismissed without deciding the case on merits.
No merits discussed. The petition was dismissed without costs.
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.621 of 2017
| Noting by Officer or Serial Date Advocate No |
Office notes, reports, orders or Proceedings with signature |
|---|---|
| TH 24.08.20 |
BEFORE E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA 17 |
| Heard Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. B. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1-5 and Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.7-12. By means of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.01.2017 delivered in Revenue Case No.47 of 2015 under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 on the ground that in deviation of the order dated 28.01.2017 [Annexure-R/1 to the reply filed by the official-respondents] and the notice dated 16.02.2017 [Annexure-10 to the writ petition] the said order was passed by truncating the scope of hearing to the petitioners and the other private respondents. For the official-respondents, Mr. B. Datta, learned counsel has submitted that by mistake in the body of the order, the date was superscribed as 28.01.2017 instead of 28.02.2017 and when the said mistake was noticed, the Addl. District Magistrate & Collector who heard the said revenue case issued the corrigendum dated 13.04.2017 [Annexure-R/3 to the reply filed by the official respondents]. |
Moumita
Page 1 of 5
W.P.(C) No.621 of 2017
Noting by Officer or Serial Date Office notes, reports, orders or Advocate No Proceedings with signature In the corrigendum the following has been asserted: “Both the parties appeared in the Court on 28-02-2017. Heard both the parties instead of Both the parties appeared in the Court on 28-01-2017. Heard both the parties.” Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.7-12 while dilating the submission further from the mark where Mr. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1-5 has stoutly submitted that no prejudice had closed his submission, has submitted that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, inasmuch as on bare reading of the order dated 28.01.2017 it would be apparent that the Addl. District Magistrate & Collector, Gomati has recorded as under: “Heard both the parties. They have submitted that except written arguments, they have no more submission.” Having regard to that aspect of the matter, Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has further submitted that the impugned order if read with the corrigendum, there cannot be any room for suspicion as projected by the petitioner. That apart, Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has contended that the private respondents No.7-12 participated in the hearing on 28.02.2017. As such, this ground of challenge in this petition cannot be sustained. The petitioner even has projected a case of bias against the Addl. District Magistrate & Collector. This court is not inclined to accept such allegation of
Moumita
Page 2 of 5
W.P.(C) No.621 of 2017
| Noting by Officer or Serial Date Advocate No |
Office notes, reports, orders or Proceedings with signature |
|---|---|
| bias as this allegation is not braced by any reliable material. For purpose of appreciation of the submission made by the learned counsel on the preliminary aspect whether the said case was taken up for hearing on 28.02.2017 or not. The entire text of the order dated 28.01.2017 is extracted here under: |
|
| “The Ld. Counsel of the 2ndparty Sri Jogendra Das Advocate submitted his written argument on behalf of Smt. Laxmi Debbarma & 6 others on 05.01.2017 as per direction Communicated to the parties vide Notice No.F.13 (3-A) DM/G/Rev/2016/5277 dated 29.12.2016. Since the 1stparty Muslem Ahmed and 7 others could not furnished their written argument as directed above by 07.01.2017. The Ld. Counsel of the 1st party Sri Debaloy Bhattacharya submitted his written argument on 28.01.2017. Heard both the parties. They have submitted that except written argument they have no more submission, However, in the ends of justice, a final hearing may be held and hearing may be concluded for passing order. Accordingly, the next date for final hearing of the case may be fixed on 28.02.2017 at 10 A.M. in the office of the undersigned. Issue notice accordingly.” It appears therefrom very clearly |
|
| that the Addl. District Magistrate & Collector has clearly observed that for |
|
| ends of justice, a final hearing may be held and hearing may be concluded for passing the order. Accordingly, the next date for final hearing was fixed on |
|
| 28.02.2017 and the notice dated |
|
| 16.02.2017 was accordingly issued. Mr. Datta, learned counsel in addition of inviting reference to the reply filed by the official respondents, has |
|
| produced the records of the Revenue | |
| Case before this court. From the records, |
Moumita
Page 3 of 5
W.P.(C) No.621 of 2017
Noting by Officer or Serial Date Office notes, reports, orders or Advocate No Proceedings with signature
it appears that on 28.02.2017 the parties [inclusive of the petitioners] appeared before the said court and they filed the respective memo of appearance. From the records, it further transpires that both the parties appeared on 28.02.2017. But on that day, as alleged by Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that there was no hearing. Much before the appointed day, the said order was passed. Later on, when that aspect of the matter was revealed, the said corrigendum was issued.
The petitioner has asserted in para-12 of this petition that on several persuasions a copy of the order was procured and it was found that the order was passed on 28.01.2017, prior to the final hearing of the case. The matter does not end there. The petitioner himself has stated in para-10 of the writ petition that on 28.01.2017 the case was partly heard and posted for further hearing on 28.02.2017 for final hearing at 10 A.M. Accordingly a notice was issued on 16.02.2017. In para-11, in sequel, it has been further stated that the case has been finally heard and judgment has been kept reserved. It is further submitted that the respondents No.3 and 4 the Presiding Officer informed that judgment will be provided to the parties by post.
Moumita
Page 4 of 5
| W.P.(C) No.621 of 2017 | |
|---|---|
| Noting by Officer or Serial Date Advocate No |
Office notes, reports, orders or Proceedings with signature |
| On the face of such submission, this court is unable to accept the contention raised in the writ petition. In view of what has been observed, this writ petition does not merit any further consideration. Since this matter has not been decided on merit, if the petitioner has any other remedy in law, the petitioner may pursue the same. This petition, therefore is dismissed. No costs. JUDGE |
Moumita
Page 5 of 5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the challenge to the impugned order stands due to a clerical error regarding the hearing date rectified by a corrigendum.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Laxmi Debbarma and 6 others
Muslem Ahmed and 7 others
Addl. District Magistrate & Collector, Gomati
Official-respondents
S. Talapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
