Orissa High Court
Mrs. Kaniz Fatima And Others vs Ramkinkar Singh Deo And Others on 16 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.534 of 2011
Mrs. Kaniz Fatima and others .... Appellants
Mr. Ramakant Mohanty, Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. Adhiraj Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
Ramkinkar Singh Deo and others .... Respondents
Mr. C.A. Rao, Senior Advocate
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER
16.03.2023
Order No.
16. 1. The challenge in the present writ appeal is to an order dated 16th
September, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing
Review Petition No. 25 of 2009 filed by the Respondents whereby
the earlier order dated 7th February, 2007 passed by the learned
Single Judge dismissing OJC No.6709 of 1994 was recalled.
However, while allowing the Review Petition, the following
direction was issued by the learned Single Judge:
"27. Accordingly, review petition is allowed and order dated
7.2, 2007 passed in O.J.C. No.6709 of 1994 is recalled. Order
dated 21.6. 1980 passed by Revenue Officer-Cum- Tahasildar
allowing application under Section 36-A of the OLR Act as
well as order passed in O.L.R. Ceiling Appeal No.2 of 1989
and O.L.R. Revision Case No.9 of 1991 upholding the order of
Revenue Officer-Cum-Tahasildar are quashed. Revenue
Officer-Cum-Tahasildar is directed to proceed with and
conclude the proceeding in O.L.R. Case No.42 of 1976 in
accordance with law in the light of observation made above."
2. Interestingly, in the present writ appeal initially a judgment was
delivered on 13th December, 2012 by the Division Bench allowing
the writ appeal and setting aside the impugned order dated 16th
September, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Review
Petition No.25 of 2009. However, that order was assailed before the
Supreme Court of India by the Respondents in SLP(C) No.9325 of
2013. By an order dated 8th March 2013, the Supreme Court passed
the following order:
"Heard learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners and
perused the relevant material.
According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner on the
date of passing of the impugned order, the sole Appellant
therein was no more and he died on 19.02.2012. If the above
statement is correct, the Petitioners are free to approach the
High Court by way of filing a review petition.
With the above observation, the special leave petition is
disposed of."
3. Pursuant to the above order, Review Petition 81 of 2013 was
filed in this Court which came to be allowed by a judgment dated
7th December, 2022 on the ground that the earlier judgment of the
Division Bench had been passed against a 'dead person'. As a
result, the present writ appeal revived before this Bench.
4. On 19th December, 2022 the following order was passed by this
Bench:
"Misc. Case. No.187 of 2012
1. It appears that even during the pendency of the review
petition being No.25 of 2007, the present Appellant had died
on 19th February, 2012 leaving behind his legal
representatives whose details are given in the Schedule to
this application.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents objects to
the application not on merits but by pointing out that
another application has to be filed for setting aside the
abatement in the writ appeal. In support of such contention,
he relies on an order passed by the Supreme Court of India
in Arjun Singh (D) by L.Rs v. Gurdalan Singh (D) by L.Rs
2009 (2) OLR (SC) 477.
3. It is seen as far as the above decision is concerned, no
application had been filed in that case and therefore, liberty
was granted to file such an application along with an
application for limitation. As far as the present case is
concerned, since an application has already been filed,
numbered and is pending and only not brought to the notice
of the Court, the Court does not consider it necessary to
require the L.Rs of the Appellant herein to again file further
applications. In the present case, a pending application was
simply not brought to the notice of the Court.
4. For the reasons stated, the application for substitution is
allowed and the Appellant is permitted to be substituted by
the L.Rs whose names are set out in the Schedule to this
application.
5. The consolidated cause title incorporating the substitution
be filed within a week.
W.A. No.534 of 2011
6. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the Respondents
states that he has not been well for some time and needs
time to prepare for the matter.
7. At his request, list on 16th March, 2023."
5. As a result to the above order, the lacuna pointed out by the
aforementioned judgment dated 7th December, 2022 stood rectified
with the substitution having taken place.
6. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Ramakanta
Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant and
Mr. C.A.Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Respondents.
7. What the impugned order of the learned Single Judge has done is
to remand the matter to the Revenue Officer-cum-Tahasildar for a
fresh disposal of the application under Section 36-A of the Orissa
Land Reforms Act i.e. OLR Case No.42 of 1976. Considering that
the case has been litigated for well over four decades, the Court
considers it appropriate to make the proceedings time bound. The
following directions are accordingly issued:
(I) OLR Case No.42 of 1976 will be listed before the Revenue
Officer-cum-Tahasildar, Nuapada on 1st June, 2023 on which date
both parties will appear before the Tahasildar. On that date, any
further documents/affidavits that the parties wish to file should be
filed before the Tahasildar. It is made clear that no further time will
be granted for this purpose;
(II) The Tahasildar will after hearing both the parties within a
period of two months thereafter pass a reasoned order not later than
4th September, 2023 and make the order available to the parties
within a week thereafter.
(III) The Court clarifies that it has not expressed any view on
merits. For that matter any view expressed by the learned Single
Judge on merits in the impugned order will also not be taken for the
binding on the Tahasildar. It will be open to the parties to urge all
the pleas available to them in accordance with law before the
Tahasildar.
(IV) Till the above exercise is complete, the status quo as of today
shall be maintained by the parties.
8. No further directions are called for. The writ appeal is disposed
of.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Priyajit
