Sri Sri Manikeshwari Devi vs Kishore Chandra Singh & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 96 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                               O.J.C. No.13526 of 1997


            Sri Sri Manikeshwari Devi                ....           Petitioner
                                                        Mr. M.Ku. Mishra,
                                                               Sr. Advocate
                                                           being assisted by
                                                     Mrs. J. Sahu, Advocate


                                        -versus-



            Kishore Chandra Singh & Ors.             ....   Opposite Parties
                                                           Mr. S.P. Panda,
                                                          Addl. Govt. Adv.
                                                            Ms. P. Naidu,
                                                                 Advocate


                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
                                       ORDER

06.01.2021 Order No.

39. 1. This writ petition involves a challenge to the order passed by

the Revisional authority vide Annexure-2 in exercise of power

U/s.15(b) of the Orissa Survey & Settlement Act, 1958 hereinafter in

short be reflected as "the Act, 1958".

2. Short background involved in this case is that the suit land

originally belongs to Sambhunath Priya Devi, wife of late Udit

Pratap Singh Deo. It is further revealed that Sambhunath Priya Devi

// 2 //

donated the suit property measuring an area Ac.28.96 dec. by way of

registered deed bearing No.118 dated 31.01.1971 in favour of

Manikeswari Devi Bije, Kashipur. It need be stated here that the

Manikeswari Devi is claimed to be the family deity of the Petitioner

Binapani Singh Deo. After death of Sambhunath Priya Devi in the

current settlement operation the suit land was recorded in the name

of Manikeswari Devi marfat Nabakumari Singh Deo and Binapani

Singh Deo wives of Rudrapratap Singh Deo. The final settlement of

record of rights was issued vide Annexure-1. It is after publication of

final settlement of record of rights, Nabakumari Singh Deo through

her power of attorney holder Ganesh Prasad Singh filed Revision

Case No.23 of 1996 under the provision of Section 15 of the Act,

1958 on the file of the learned Land Reforms Commissioner, Orissa

with a prayer to delete the name of Binapani Singh Deo. The brief

further discloses that in the revision for non-appearance of the

Petitioner, she was set ex parte. The revision was finally allowed

ordering deletion of the name of Binapani Singh Deo with recording

that there was service of notice on Binapani Singh Deo and for her

non-appearance she has been held ex parte.

3. In his first attempt Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate

appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the matter was

// 3 //

decided on erroneous footing that there was notice served on said

Binapani Singh Deo. While the fact remains, there is absolutely no

such service ever served and thus there is illegal ex parte disposal of

the revision that too behind back of the Petitioner. The Second limb

of argument of Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate is that the

outcome in the revision is based on a contemporaneous document

inasmuch as on some disclosures from some urban ceiling

proceeding that Binapani Singh Deo was already a divorced wife. It

is based on such finding the revision has been allowed thereby

directing for deletion of name of Binapani Singh Deo. Taking this

Court to the documents involving the urban ceiling proceeding Mr.

Mishra, learned Senior Advocate contended that finding to this

effect rather remains perverse. It is on these two grounds Mr.

Mishra, learned Senior Advocate urged for interference in the

impugned order. In the process Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate

also prayed for providing opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner to

set up its case in the proceeding U/s.15 of the Act, 1958.

4. Mr. Panda, learned Additional Government Advocate

however in his attempt to support the impugned judgment vide

Annexure-2 contended that for a notice already sent to the present

Petitioner, nothing prevented the Petitioner to raise all such pleas in

// 4 //

the Section 15 proceeding and for the Petitioner's choosing not to

contest the matter, the revisional authority had no other option than

to pass the impugned order. It is, however, passed basing on the

materials available on record. On the second limb of argument of

Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the

Petitioner Mr. Panda, learned Additional Government Advocate

submitted that such a ground for having not been available for

consideration of the Revisional Authority, the judgment of the

Revisional Authority cannot be found to be faulted on this count. In

the process Mr. Panda, learned Additional Government Advocate

claimed for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. In her stand Ms. Naidu, learned counsel for the Opposite

Party No.6 while supporting the submission made by Mr. Panda,

learned Additional Government Advocate also claimed for dismissal

of the writ petition.

6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and going

through the counter affidavit, this Court though finds, there is denial

to the claim of the Petitioner on the aspect of service of notice on the

Petitioner, however there is no material produced to establish the

aspect of service of notice on the Petitioner concerned. This Court,

// 5 //

therefore, finds, still there remains a dispute as to the service of

notice on the Petitioner and there is no clarity through counter

affidavit on this aspect. So far as the second limb of argument is

concerned; this Court finds, the grounds so made are available only

in the writ petition and Mr. Panda, learned Additional Government

Advocate may be justified in his attempt in this regard. For the

opinion, for there is no availability of such ground before the

revisional authority there was no possibility on the part of the

revisional authority in undertaking such exercise. Be that as it may,

since this Court is not satisfied with the submission of Mr. Panda,

learned Additional Government Advocate through counter affidavit

on the aspect of sufficiency of notice on the Petitioner and further

finding some force in the second limb of argument of Mr. Mishra,

learned Senior Advocate and keeping in view the ex parte nature of

impugned judgment, in the interest of justice this Court is of the

opinion to interfere in the impugned judgment at Annexure-2 and

accordingly while setting aside the same, this Court directs the

learned Land Reforms commissioner, Odisha, Cuttack for fresh

adjudication of the Revision Case No.23 of 1996 at least providing

opportunity of contest to the Petitioner and all other contestants

involved therein.

// 6 //

7. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of one

year from the date of communication of an authenticated copy of

this order by the Petitioner. Since the Petitioner has not put up her

case as of now, the Petitioner is at liberty to place its case by way of

objection alongwith material support and also with a copy of this

order at least within a period of three weeks hence. It is also open to

the Petitioner for placing reliance of any other ground in shape of

objection for consideration of the revisional authority.

8. The writ petition succeeds, but however, with an order of

remand for fresh disposal.

(Biswanath Rath) Judge

Ayas Kanta Jena