Nabaghana Pradhan vs Member
2023 Latest Caselaw 2284 Ori

         ORISSA HIGH COURT : C U T T A C K
                       W.P.(C) NO.17718 OF 2011
                  An application under Articles 226 & 227 of
                       the Constitution of India.


Nabaghana Pradhan                               : Petitioner

                               -Versus-

Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack & ors.           : Opposite Parties


      For Petitioner                 : Mr.B.Mohanty,Adv.

      For Opposite Parties           : Mr.S.Mishra, ASC
                                       Mr.N.K.Sahu, Adv.


                               JUDGMENT

CORAM :

JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH

Date of Hearing & Judgment : 21.03.2023

1. This Writ Petition involves a challenge to order at Annexure-9 vide

order dated 28.04.2008 also the consequential order dated 25.07.2009.

Mr.Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner taking this Court to the

direction at paragraph-5 in the order dated 04.02.2008 at page-48 of the

brief submits that once in the consideration process, Revisional Court

desires to peruse the documents and giving direction to the Petitioner

therein for providing such documents, the only conclusion of such order

// 2 //

would have been postponing the case to the next date for considering

such documents vis-à-vis the other submissions already made in the

meantime. It is alleged that the Competent Authority proceeding to pass

final order in no justice to a litigant. In course of haring it is also brought

to the notice of the Court that Petitioner had the difficulty in producing

such documents by the next date. It is unfortunate instead of providing

another opportunity, the Revisional Authority instead of posting the case

requiring appropriate direction proceeded in finality of the proceeding

and rejecting the revision on merit. It is alleged that after such

development, the Petitioner moved further application for recalling of

such order which has also been negatived by the order dated 25.07.2009

also impugned herein.

2. Mr.Sahoo, learned counsel for the private Opposite Parties on the

other hand submits, for the Revisional Authority confirming the remand

order passed by the Appellate Authority, there did not any requirement in

interfering with such order also on the premises that Petitioner can get

better opportunity in placing the case before the Original Authority taking

advantage of the remand order.

3. Learned State Counsel relied on the submission of Mr.Sahoo, and

attempt to support the impugned orders herein.

4. Considering the rival contentions of the Parties, this Court finds, a

revision has been brought in his challenge to the appellate order of

// 3 //

remand. In course of hearing the order dated 04.02.2008 in paragraph-5,

the Revisional Authority finding difficulty to conclude the matter directed

as follows:-

"The petitioner is advised to submit, on or before 17.3.2008, the following information/documents:

i) Certified copy of the orders dtd.26.7.1999 of Sub-

Collector, Puri in Mutation Appeal No.26/1997. The Xerox copy filed is not acceptable.

ii) Certified copy of orders dtd.14.10.1997 of Tahasildar, Nimapara in Mutation Case No.1418/1996.

iii) Certified copy of the relevant orders of Assistant Consolidation Officer-cum-Additional Tahasildar, Nimapara in OLR Case No.153/1985.

iv) Certified copy of relevant orders of Sub-Collector, Puri in OLR Appeal Case No.5/1986.

v) Certified copy of relevant orders of Additional District Magistrate, Puri in OLR Revision Case No.14/1987.

vi) Original or certified copy of the published Consolidation R-O-R of the suit land."

It appears, on the next date of posting there was no finality of such

record for document and the Revisional Authority concluded the

proceeding on the next date itself by dismissing the revision thereby

confirming the Appellate Authority's remand order.

5. For the revelation through the order dated 04.02.2008 and looking

to the nature of objection involving the remand order, for the opinion of

this Court in the event the Petitioner failed in providing documents as per

the direction in paragraph-5 of the order dated 04.02.2008 in all

probabilities the Revisional Authority could have granted further

// 4 //

opportunities may be by providing one more last chance instead entering

into finality of the proceeding.

6. This Court deprecates the manner of disposal and thus interferes

with the order dated 28.04.2008 as a consequence also interferes with the

order dated 25.07.3009, sets aside both. For there is requirement of

recommencement of the revision proceeding, this Court relegates the

matter back to the stage of 04.02.2008. This Court records the

undertaking of learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner will

provide the desired document vide order dated 04.02.2008 on the date of

appearance before the Revisional Authority along with copy the order of

this Court on 05.04.2023. Parties in contest are directed to appear before

the Revisional Authority on 05.04.2023.

7. The Writ Petition succeeds but to the above extent. No costs.

(Biswanath Rath) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack.

The 21st March, 2023/Swarna, Junior Stenographer