Panchanan Dalai & Another vs Urmila Ray & Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 512 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                       W.A. No.528 of 2016

            Panchanan Dalai & Another                      ....          Appellants
                                                      Mr. Suraj Mohanty, Advocate
                                              -versus-
            Urmila Ray & others                            ....        Respondents
                                                    Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, AGA

                       CORAM:
                       THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                       JUSTICE M. S. RAMAN

                                         ORDER

16.01.2023 Order No.

12. 1. None appears for the Respondent No.1 (as substituted by her LRs).

2. This Court heard submissions of learned counsel for the Appellants as well as the State.

3. The challenge in the present Appeal is to a judgment dated 1st November, 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the W.P.(C) No.19010 of 2010 filed by the Respondent No.1, Urmila Ray, seeking the quashing of an order dated 22nd September, 2010 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Sundergarh in Revenue Appeal No.23 of 2002 and an order dated 12th April, 2002 passed by the Sub-collector, Bonai in Regulation Case No.1 of 1995. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition set aside the aforementioned orders.

4. According to the learned Single Judge, the Plot given to the Respondent No.1 by virtue of a registered lease already stood covered by the earlier Regulation Case No.144 of 1977 and, therefore, a second case in relation to the same property was not maintainable on the principles of res judicata.

5. On the other hand, it is the case of the present Appellant that the property in question is sabik plot No.203 corresponding to hal plot No.379 and 380 was not the subject matter of the earlier proceedings. The earlier proceedings according to the Petitioner, was in respect of Plot No.385 corresponding to Khata No.13 and, therefore, the principle of res judicata would not apply.

6. A perusal of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge reveals that the above facts were not noticed by the learned Single Judge. In other words, the contention of the present Appellant that the present dispute concerns Plot Nos.379 and 380 whereas the earlier dispute which ended in orders in favour of the Respondent No.1 wherein respect of Plot No.385 corresponding to Khata No.13, was not addressed by the learned Single Judge.

7. Although an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the LRs of Respondent No.1, there is nothing therein to contradict the above assertion of the Petitioner as regards the subject matter of the proceedings.

8. In that view of the matter, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and W.P.(C) No.19010 of 2010 is restored

to the file of the learned Single Judge for now being decided afresh on merits after hearing the parties.

9. The matter will be listed before the Roster Bench of the learned Single Judge on 27th March, 2023 for being proceeded with afresh in accordance with law. Till disposal of the writ petition, status quo shall be maintained by the parties. The writ appeal is allowed in the above terms.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

(M. S. Raman) Judge Laxmikant