Orissa High Court
Afr vs State Of Odisha And Others on 26 September, 2023
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK
W.P.(C) NO. 10176 OF 2016
In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
---------------
AFR
Trilochan Sahoo ..... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opp. Parties
For petitioner : M/s. D.K. Sahoo-1,
and B.K. Behera, Advocates.
For opp. parties : Mr. S.S. Kanungo,
Addl. Government Advocate
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Date of hearing and Judgment : 26.09.2023
DR. B.R. SARANGI, J. By means of this writ petition, the
petitioner seeks to quash the orders dated 12.05.2015
and 05.06.2015 passed by the Addl. Tahasildar,
Naktideula in the district of Sambalpur under Annexure-
6, by which reduction of area of Ac.0.01 decimals has
been made from Plot No.1506 (P), Khata No.151, Kisam-
Basti of Mouza- Sahebi.
2. The factual matrix of the case, as is borne out
from the record, is that Hadibandhu Sahu, the father of
the petitioner was in peaceful occupation of Plot No.1568
measuring area Ac.0.05 dec., Kisam-Gharabari under
Khata No.151 of Mouza-Sahebi under the erstwhile
Tahasil of Rairakhol in the district of Sambalpur for more
than 50 years. After his death, the same was settled in
favour of the petitioner in an amicable partition amongst
the brothers of the petitioner, in which the aforesaid plot
was fallen to the share of the petitioner. As such, on his
application, the said plot was mutated in his favour in
Abadi Basti Lease Case No.1192 of 2011. The record of
rights was also issued in favour of the petitioner in Khata
No.150/179, Plot No.1568 measuring an area Ac.0.050,
Kisam- Gharabari. While issuing the record of rights, the
revenue authority, Naktideula wrongly mentioned the
caste of the petitioner as "Chasa" instead of "Teli", for
which the petitioner applied for its correction and, as
such, corrected record of rights was also issued in his
favour in the year 2014. But the area was reduced by
Ac.0.01 dec. from its original record of rights, i.e., Ac.0.05
dec., by showing an area of Ac.0.04 dec. Against reduction
of area of Ac.0.01 dec., the petitioner filed Abadi Basti
Appeal No.12 of 2014 before the Sub-Collector, Rairakhol,
who, vide order dated 25.03.2015, remanded the matter
to the Tahasildar with a direction to conduct an enquiry
regarding possession of the petitioner for settlement of
applied land, as per the provisions of OGLS (Amendment)
Rules, 2010. Consequentially, the Tahasildar conducted
the enquiry on 12.05.2015 and found that the petitioner
has constructed his dwelling house over an area of
Ac.0.04 decimals out of Ac.0.05 decimals in Plot No.1568
(P) in Khata No.151 under Kisam-Basti of Mouza-Sahebi
and residing their prior to 26.02.2006. Consequentially,
the Tahasildar directed for settlement of the same in
favour of the petitioner on rayati status, as per the
provisions contained under clause-5 (d) of Rule-5B of
OGLS (Amendment) Rules, 2010 and, thereafter, vide
order dated 05.06.2015, closed the case. Hence, this writ
petition.
3. Mr. D.K. Sahu-1, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner
was in occupation of an area of Ac.0.05 decimals of land
as per the record of rights issued on 24.12.2013 under
Annexure-2 by the Tahasildar, Naktideula and such
possession would relate back to a date of more than 50
years by occupation of his father having his residential
house as a homesteadless person. Thereby, the petitioner
has acquired a title by way of adverse possession. After
the death of the father of the petitioner, the same was
fallen to the share of him and from that date he is in
possession of an area of Ac.0.05 decimals. Therefore,
there is no valid and justifiable reason to reduce the area
of Ac.0.01 dec. and mentioning the same as Ac.0.04 dec.,
pursuant to order dated 12.05.2015 in Abadi Basti Case
No.1192 of 2011, and closure made thereof vide order
dated 05.06.2015 in Annexure-6, cannot be sustained in
the eye of law. So far as mentioning of Ac.0.04 dec.
instead of Ac.0.05 dec. is concerned, the same has been
done without following due procedure, more particularly
without complying the principles of natural justice. It is
further contended that in the order impugned dated
12.05.2015 it has been clearly mentioned that one
Rajkishore Sahu has sold the land to an extent of Ac.0.01
dec. from plot no.1568, Khata No.151 of Mouza-Sahebi to
one Sarat Dehury, who is opposite party no.7 to the writ
petition. But nothing has been placed on record to show
that any opportunity was given to Rajkishore Sahu and
Sarat Dehury, the so called seller and purchaser of the
property, to produce any material to justify the same.
Thereby, it is contended that reduction of area of Ac.0.01
dec. by the Tahasildar amounts to arbitrary and
unreasonable. It is further contended that the provisions
contained in the OGLS (Amendment) Rules, 2010 have
not been followed, because originally the area was coming
under the Rairakhol Tahasil but subsequently due to
bifurcation of the Tahasil, it was coming under Naktideula
Tahasil, the Tahasildar of which, without any application
of mind and without giving opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner, has passed the order by reducing the area of
Ac.0.01 dec. on the plea of sale by Rajkishore Sahu to
opposite party no.7-Sarat Dehury. Therefore, the same
cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Consequentially, he
seeks for quashing of the orders dated 12.05.2015 and
05.06.2015 passed by the Addl. Tahasildar, Naktideula
under Annexure-6.
4. Mr. S.S. Kanungo, learned Addl. Government
Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties
contended that Lalita Sahu, resident of Sahebi applied for
settlement of Abadi land on behalf of her husband
Trilochan Sahu in permanent heritable and transferable
status under Rule 5 (B) of the OGLS (Amendment) Rules,
2010, the details of which run as follows:-
Mouza Khata No Plot No Area Kisam
Sahebi 151 1568 0.05 Basti
It is contended that the then Tahasildar instituted OGLS
Case No.1192 of 2011 and settled an area of Ac.0.05
decimals, as mentioned above, in favour of Trilochan
Sahu son of Hadibandhu Sahu of Village-Sahebi, as per
order dated 09.09.2012. As such, the ROR was corrected
for an area of Ac.0.05 decimals in favour of Trilochan
Sahu. As per Rule-5 (B) of Schedule-V of OGLS
(Amendment) Rules, 2010, the settlement of land beyond
Ac.0.04 dec. and upto Ac.0.10 dec. in rural areas requires
approval of Sub-Collector. Since the Tahasildar corrected
the ROR, without taking approval of the Sub-Collector,
later on realizing the mistake the Tahasildar revised his
own order dated 09.09.2012 and modified it on
20.05.2014 by reducing the area to Ac.0.04 decimals.
Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred
appeal before the Sub-Collector, Rairakhol and the same
was registered as Appeal Case No.12 of 2014 and by order
dated 25.03.2015 the Sub-Collector remanded the matter
to the Tahasildar with a direction to conduct a fresh
inquiry regarding the possession of the land and examine
the eligibility of the applicant for settlement of land as per
OGLS (Amendment) Rules, 2010 vide G.O. dated
11.02.2010. Pursuant to the said order, the Addl.
Tahasildar conducted an enquiry and ascertained that the
petitioner, a resident of Sahebi, has constructed a
dwelling house over an area of Ac.0.04 dec. on the M.S.
Plot No.1568 (P) under M.S. Khata No.151, Kisam-Basti of
Mouza-Sahebi and he is residing there with his family
prior to 26.02.2006. Simultaneously, it was ascertained
that one Sarat Dehury, son of Jodi Dehury of village
Sahebi was occupying remaining Ac.0.01 dec. of land of
M.S. Plot No.1568 (P) of Mouza-Sahebi. Thereby, the
petitioner is not in possession of entire land/area of Plot
No.1568 for a period of at least 3 years prior to the
appointed date, i.e., 26.02.2009. Thus, it is contended
that the petitioner is not eligible for settlement of the
entire area of Ac.0.05 decimals, as claimed by him. It is
further contended that since the area of Ac.0.01 dec. of
land of M.S. Plot No.1568 is in possession of one Sarat
Dehury, the Tahasildar is well justified in settling an area
of Ac.0.04 dec. of land in favour of the petitioner. Thereby,
no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the
authority so as to cause interference of this Court at this
stage.
5. This Court heard Mr. D.K. Sahu-1, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.S.
Kanungo, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing
for the State-opposite parties in hybrid mode and perused
the record. Pleadings having been exchanged between the
parties, the matter has been disposed of finally with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties at the stage of
admission.
6. On the basis of the factual matrix, as
delineated above, it is made clear that an area of Ac.0.05
decimals of land appertaining to Plot No.1568 (P), Kisam-
Basti, Khata No.151 of Mouza-Sahebi was initially settled
in favour of the father of the petitioner and, thereafter, by
way of succession, the same has been recorded in the
name of the petitioner and, as such, he is in possession of
the same and staying there by constructing a dwelling
house. As such, vide order dated 09.09.2012 passed in
OGLS Case No.1192 of 2011, the land measuring an area
of Ac.0.05 dec. was settled in favour of the petitioner.
Accordingly, ROR was issued for an area of Ac.0.05
decimals. But, as per the provisions contained under
Rule-5 (B) of Schedule-V of OGLS (Amendment) Rules,
2010, the settlement of land beyond Ac.0.04 dec. and
upto Ac.0.10 dec. in rural areas requires approval of the
Sub-Collector. As it appears, the Tahsildar had corrected
the ROR, without taking the approval of the Sub-
Collector, and later on realizing the mistake the
Tahasildar revised his own order dated 09.09.2012 and
modified the same on 20.05.2014 by reducing the area to
Ac.0.04 dec. Against the said order, the petitioner
preferred appeal before the Sub-Collector in Appeal Case
No.12/2014, which was disposed of by the Sub-Collector
by remanding the matter back to the Tahasildar with a
direction to conduct a fresh enquiry regarding the
possession of the land and examine the eligibility of the
petitioner for settlement of land as per OGLS
(Amendment) Rules, 2010 vide G.O. dated 11.02.2010.
Basing upon such direction, the Addl. Tahasildar
conducted an enquiry and it was found that the petitioner
was in possession of Ac.0.04 dec. and an area of Ac.0.01
dec. was in possession of one Sarat Dehury, which was
stated to be purchased from one of the co-sharers,
namely, Rajkishore Sahu and such sale was made orally.
But nothing was placed on record or produced at the time
of enquiry by the Tahasildar with regard to such sale.
Therefore, against reduction of area from Ac.0.05 dec. to
Ac.0.04 dec. by the Tahasildar, without giving opportunity
of hearing, the petitioner has approached this Court by
filing the present writ petition.
7. While entertaining the writ petition, this Court,
vide order dated 13.06.2016, passed the following order:-
"Order dated 13.06.2016
"Six extra copies of the writ petition be served
on learned Additional Government Advocate,
who accepts notice on behalf of opposite party
nos.1 to 6, within three days enabling him to
obtain instruction in the matter.
List this matter after six weeks."
Misc. Case No.9416 of 2016
As an interim, it is directed that status quo as
on today with regard to the land appertaining
to Plot No.1568, Khata No.151 of mouza-
Sahebi under Rairakhol Tahasil in the district
of Sambalpur shall he maintained by the
parties till the next date."
Thereafter, on 11.05.2022, this Court, in I.A. No. 18039 of
2019, passed the following orders:-
"1. Heard Mr.D.K.Sahoo, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr.D.K.Mohanty,
learned Addl. Government Advocate.
2. At the outset on oral prayer, Mr.Sahoo,
learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted
to correct the description of the father's name
in the schedule of the Interlocutory
Application.
3. This is an application for impletion of
party to the writ petition.
4. Considering the submissions made and
the grounds taken in the application the
prayer for impletion is allowed.
5. Mr.Sahoo undertakes to file
consolidated cause title in course of the day.
6. I.A is accordingly disposed of.
W.P.(C) No. 10176 of 2016
7. Issue notice to newly added opposite party
no.7 through registered post with A.D.,
requisites shall be filed by 13th May, 2022.
8. List this matter on 11th July 2022.
9. Interim order passed earlier shall continue
till the next date."
Again, on 22.02.2023, this Court passed the following
orders:-
"1. Mr. Sahoo, learned advocate appears on
behalf of petitioner and submits, impugned is
order dated 12th May, 2015 made by the
Additional Tahsildar, by which one decimal of
land belonging to his client was settled on
private opposite party no.7. He demonstrates
from impugned order that purported local
enquiry was relied upon to find the sale,
though no document was produced.
2. Mr. Nanda, learned advocate,
Additional Government Advocate appears on
behalf of State. He submits, private opposite
party no.7 had asserted, he had purchased
the land.
3. Mr. Dhar, learned advocate appears on
virtual mode for private opposite party no.7.
He is not audible. Private opposite party no.7
has liberty to file additional affidavit
disclosing proof of purchase, either on
conveyance or otherwise.
4. List on 1st March, 2023."
Further, on 21.03.2023, this Court passed the following
orders:-
"1. Mr. Sahoo, learned advocate appears on
behalf of petitioner and with reference to his
submissions recorded in order dated 22nd
February, 2023 he submits, the Tahsildar
had found on report of enquiry that his client
was in possession of 5 decimals of land.
Accordingly there was allotment. Admittedly,
the land is in rural area. His client
constructed house on four decimals and there
was a little open space, being in the
remaining one decimal.
2. Now the administration, by impugned
order, is seeking to take away one decimal,
on allegation of sale to opposite party no.7.
No document has been produced. This
resumption in respect of one decimal was
done without notice to his client.
3. Mr. Nanda, learned advocate,
Additional Government Advocate appears on
behalf of State and submits, clear guidelines
were there regarding power of the Tahsildar
to settle land. He refers to guideline no.5 (a)
and (b), disclosed in the counter. Reproduced
below are clauses (a) and (b) of guideline
no.5.
"5. Powers to settle land : (a) The
settlement of land under these rules
shall be made by the Tahsildar
where the land is used for
homestead purpose and the total
extent of land with the application
does not exceed 4 decimals (one-
twenty fifth of an acre) and is
situated in rural area.
(b) Cases involving area of land
used for homestead purposes will
be approved by the Sub Collector if
the extent of land is up to four
decimals (one-twenty fifth of an
acre) in urban area or exceeds four
decimals but does not exceed ten
decimals (one-tenth of an acre) in
rural area.
xxx xxx xxx
(emphasis supplied)
He submits, soon after the Tahsildar realized
error committed, there were orders made in
year 2015 itself, to cancel the allotment and
make fresh allotment of four decimals.
4. By our earlier order dated 22nd
February, 2023 we had given liberty to
opposite party no.7 to file additional affidavit
disclosing proof of purchase. Said opposite
party goes unrepresented.
5. It does appear from materials disclosed
and on record that petitioner was found to be
in possession of five decimals, when the
allotment was made. The Tahsildar, in such
situation, deciding to recall the allotment and
making fresh allotment of four decimals,
without referring to the Sub-Collector for
approval to allot five decimals, was an act
done to detriment petitioner. In the
circumstances, we require a report to be filed
by the Collector, Deogarh on extent of land in
possession of petitioner at present time and
whether there is possession by some other in
respect of one decimal of land, constituted in
the original allotment of five decimals made to
petitioner. In event some other person is
found, documentary evidence of interest in
the land must be obtained from such person.
State will file the report through additional
affidavit, to be accepted on adjourned date
upon advanced copy served.
6. List on 11th April, 2023."
On 11.04.2023, this Court, in I.A. No. 4702 of 2023,
passed the following orders:-
"1. Mr. Sahoo, learned advocate appears on
behalf of petitioner and submits, application
has been made by his client owning error in
submission that concerned Collector was of
Deogarh. Direction in paragraph-5 in our
order dated 21st March, 2023 ought to have
been made on Collector, Sambalpur.
2. Mr. Sharma, learned advocate,
Additional Government Advocate appears on
behalf of State and confirms concerned is
Collector, Sambalpur.
3. The direction made in paragraph-5 of
our order dated 21st March, 2023 be carried
out by Collector, Sambalpur. The affidavit will
be accepted on adjourned date, upon advance
copy served.
4. The I.A. is disposed of.
5. List on 2nd May, 2023"
8. In compliance of the order dated 21.03.2023,
an additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the Collector,
Sambalpur, paragraph-3 whereof reads as under:-
"3. That, as per the direction of the Hon'ble
Court, Tahasildar, Naktideul (deponent)
alongwoth Revenue Supervisor, Revenue
Inspector, Naktideul and Amin, Record Room
proceed to the disputed land and demarcated
the spot in presence of Sri Trilochan Sahoo,
the petitioner, Sri Sarat Dehury and Sri
Rajkishor Sahoo, elder brother of the
petitioner and prepared a sketch map. From
the demarcation, it is ascertained that the
petitioner-Sri Trilochan Sahoo is in possession
of Plot No.1568/2569, area 0.04 dec. In
respect of the rest 0.01 dec. of land it is found
that one Sarat Dehury is in possession of
0.00785 dec. of land and residing in a
dwelling house constructed over it, which is
indicated in pink colour in the sketch map.
Rest of the area out of that 0.01 dec. land is
in possession of the petitioner-Sri Trilochan
Sahu as indicated in green colour of the
sketch map. Copy of sketch map is annexed
herewith as ANNEXURE-C/5."
In view of the aforesaid affidavit filed by the Collector, it is
made clear that admittedly the petitioner was in
possession of Ac.0.05 decimals of land but out of that,
when enquiry was conducted, it was found that he was in
physical possession of Ac.0.04 decimals of land and in
respect of rest Ac.0.01 decimals of land, it was found that
one Sarat Dehury was in possession of Ac.0.00785 dec. of
land and residing in a dwelling house constructed over it.
But in the local enquiry report, which has been placed on
record as Annexure-D/5, it has been specially mentioned
that out of the said plot no.1568, Ac.0.01 dec. of land is
possessed by Sarat Dehury-opposite party no.7, by
constructing a shop room, for last four to five years. It has
also been mentioned therein that he had purchased the
same orally from one Rajkishore Sahu, one of the co-
sharers, but could not produce any material or document
to satisfy and, as such, the same has been reflected in
paragraph-4 of the affidavit filed by the Collector.
9. In Sheodhyan Singh v. Mst. Sanichara Kuer,
AIR 1963 SC 1879, the apex Court held that whenever
there is any misdescription of property, the real intention
of the parties has to be gathered from the surrounding
circumstances. Ordinarily it is said that depending upon
the facts and circumstances of each case, whenever there
is a conflict in description of property in sale deed or any
other instrument so far as plot number, khata number
and boundaries are concerned, generally speaking the
boundaries are to prevail.
The aforementioned view was also taken into
consideration by this Court in Dinabandhu Sethi v.
Chintamani Sahu, AIR 1971 Ori. 215, Dhobei Behera v.
Nabaghana Senapati, 1973 (2) CWR 1255, Babaji
Dehuri v. Biranchi Ananta, Vol.81 (1996) CLT 651.
10. In view of clear admission in the affidavit, as
referred to above, there is no dispute on the fact that the
petitioner was in possession of Ac.0.05 dec. of land out of
Plot No.1568 and, as such, it is admitted that the
petitioner is in occupation of Ac.0.04 decimals and, so far
as Ac.0.01 dec. of land is concerned, the same was sold
by Rajkishore Sahu in favour of opposite party no.7. Even
though opposite party no.7 has entered appearance
through his counsel, he has not preferred to file any
counter affidavit or produced any document to show that
he had purchased the land from Rajkishore Sahu. In
absence of any material to that extent, the so called sale
cannot be treated to be a valid sale. More so, a claim with
regard to oral sale has been made, but nothing has been
placed on record before this Court justifying the same as
valid. Above part, the ROR issued in Annexure-2 clearly
indicates that the petitioner was in possession of Ac.0.05
decimals of land. But subsequently the Additional
Tahasildar, without giving any opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner and without complying with the principles
of natural justice, reduced the same to Ac.0.04 decimals,
thereby causing shortage of Ac.0.01 dec. But the reasons
for occupation of Ac.0.01 dec. of land by opposite party
no.7-Sarat Dehury cannot have any justification, due to
non-production of the relevant records. As such, at best
opposite party no.7-Sarat Dehury can be construed to be
an unauthorized occupant of the area allotted in favour of
the petitioner. Merely because allotment of Ac.0.05
decimals of land in favour of the petitioner requires
approval of the Sub-Collector and the same having not
been done by the Tahasildar, he cannot suo motu reduce
the area from Ac.0.05 decimals to Ac.0.04 decimals
without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
and without complying with the principles of natural
justice, as the ROR indicates that the petitioner was in
possession of Ac.0.05 decimals of land vide Annexure-2.
11. The essential of compliance of natural justice is
nothing but a duty to act fairly. Natural justice is an
antithesis of arbitrariness. It, therefore, follows that audi
alteram partem, which is facet of natural justice is a
requirement of Art.14.
The word 'nature' literally means the innate
tendency or quality of things or objects and the word 'just'
means upright, fair or proper. The expression 'natural
justice' would, therefore, mean the innate quality of being
fair.
Natural justice, another name of which is
common sense of justice, is the name of those principles
which constitute the minimum requirement of justice and
without adherence to which justice would be a travesty.
Natural justice accordingly stands for that fundamental
quality of fairness which being adopted, justice must not
only be done but also appears to be done.
The soul of natural justice is "fair play in
action".
12. In HK (An Infant) in re, 1967 1 All ER 226
(DC), Lord Parker, CJ, preferred to describe natural
justice as 'a duty to act fairly'.
13. In Fairmount Investments Ltd. v. Secy. of
State for Environment, 1976 2 All ER 865 (HL), Lord
Russel of Killowen somewhat picturesquely described
natural justice as 'a fair crack of the whip'.
14. In R. v. Secy. Of State for Home Affairs, ex
p. Hosenball, Geoffrey Lane, LJ, 1977 3 All ER 452 (DC &
CA), preferred the homely phrase 'common fairness' in
defining natural justice.
15. In Ridge v. Baldwin, (1963) 2 SLL RT 66 at
102, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest observed that "it is well
established that the essential requirements of natural
justice at least include that before someone is condemned
he is to have an opportunity of defending himself, and in
order that he may do so that he is to be made aware of
the charges or allegations or suggestions which he has to
meet ... My Lords, here is something which is basic to our
system: the importance of upholding it far transcends the
significance of any particular case".
16. In Byrne v. Kinematograph Renters Society
Ltd, (1958) All ER 579, while considering the
requirements of natural justice, Justice Narman, J said.
"........First, I think that the person accused should know
the nature of the accusation made; secondly, that he
should be given an opportunity to state his case; and
thereby, of course, that the tribunal should act in good
faith. I do not think that there really is anything more".
17. In Russel v. Duke of Norfolk, (1949) 1 All ER
109, Tucker, LJ, observed that one essential is that the
person concerned should have a reasonable opportunity
of presenting his case. The view of Tucker, LJ, in Russell's
case (supra) has been approved by the Supreme Court of
India in Rattan Lal Sharma v Managing Committee,
(1993) 4 SCC 10 : AIR 1993 SC 2115.
18. In General Medical Council v. Spackman,
(1943) AC 627, Lord Wright pointed out that it should
give a full and fair opportunity to every party being heard.
19. In A.K. Kraipak and others v. Union of
India, AIR 1970 SC 150: (1969) 2 SCC 262, is a landmark
in the growth of this doctrine. Speaking for the
Constitution Bench, Hegde, J. observed thus:
"If the purpose of the rules of natural justice is
to prevent miscarriage of justice one fails to
see why those rules should be made
inapplicable to administrative enquiries. Often
times it is not easy to draw the line that
demarcates administrative enquiries from
quasi-judicial enquiries. Enquiries which were
considered administrative at one time are now
being considered as quasi-judicial in
character. Arriving at a just decision is the
aim of both quasi-judicial enquiries as well as
administrative enquiries. An unjust decision in
an administrative enquiry may have far
reaching effect than a decision in a quasi-
judicial enquiry".
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR
1978 SC 597 : (1978) 1 SCC 248, law has done further
blooming of this concept. This decision has established
beyond doubt that even in an administrative proceeding
involving civil consequences doctrine of natural justice
must be held to be applicable.
20. In Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India,
AIR 1981 SC 818, the meaning of 'natural justice' came
for consideration before the apex Court and the apex
Court observed as follows:-
"The phrase is not capable of a static and
precise definition. It cannot be imprisoned in
the straight-jacket of a cast-iron formula.
Historically, "natural justice" has been used in
a way "which implies the existence of moral
principles of self evident and urarguable
truth". "Natural justice" by Paul Jackson,
2nd Ed., page-1. In course of time, judges
nurtured in the traditions of British
jurispruduence, often invoked it in conjuction
with a reference to "equity and good
conscience". Legal experts of earlier
generations did not draw any distinction
between "natural justice" and "natural law".
"Natural justice" was considered as "that part
of natural law which relates to the
administration of justice."
21. In Basudeo Tiwary v Sido Kanhu University
and others (1998) 8 SCC 194, the apex Court held that
natural justice is an antithesis of arbitrariness. It,
therefore, follows that audi alteram partem, which is facet
of natural justice is a requirement of Art.14.
22. In Nagarjuna Construction Company
Limited v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 16
SCC 276, the apex Court held as follows:
"The rule of law demands that the power to
determine questions affecting rights of citizens
would impose the limitation that the power
should be exercised in conformity with the
principles of natural justice. Thus, whenever a
man's rights are affected by decisions taken
under statutory powers, the court would
presume the existence of a duty to observe the
rules of natural justice. It is important to note
in this context the normal rule that whenever
it is necessary to ensure against the failure of
justice, the principles of natural justice must
be read into a provision. Such a course is not
permissible where the rule excludes expressly
or by necessary intendment, the application of
the principles of natural justice, but in that
event, the validity of that rule may fall for
consideration."
23. The apex Court in Uma Nath Panday and
others v State of U.P. and others, AIR 2009 SC 2375,
held that natural justice is the essence of fair
adjudication, deeply rooted in tradition and conscience, to
be ranked as fundamental. The purpose of following the
principles of natural justice is the prevention of
miscarriage of justice.
24. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election
Commissioner, AIR1978 SC 851 : (1978) 1 SCC 405, the
apex Court held that natural justice is treated as a
pervasive facet of secular law where a spiritual touch
enlivens legislation, administration and adjudication, to
make fairness a creed of life. It has many colours and
shades, many forms and shapes and, save where valid
law excludes, it applies when people are affected by acts
of Authority. It is the bone of healthy government,
recognised from earliest times and not a mystic testament
of judge-made law. Indeed, from the legendary days of
Adam-and of Kautilya's Arthasastra-the rule of law has
had this stamp of natural justice which makes it social
justice.
25. In Bhagwan v. Ramchand, AIR 1965 SC
1767: (1965) 3 SCR 218, the apex Court held that the
rule of law demands that the power to determine
questions affecting rights of citizens would impose the
limitation that the power should be exercised in
conformity with the principles of natural justice.
26. In Sukdev Singh v Bhagatram, AIR 1975 SC
1331: (1975)1 SCC 421, the apex Court held that
whenever a man's rights are affected by decisions taken
under statutory powers, the court would presume the
existence of a duty to observe the rules of natural justice.
27. In the above view of the matter, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the orders dated 12.05.2015
and 05.06.2015 passed by the Addl. Tahasildar,
Naktideula under Annexure-6 cannot be sustained in the
eye of law and the same are liable to be quashed and are
hereby quashed. The Tahasildar, Naktideula is directed to
prepare the ROR, on the basis of the ROR issued vide
Annexure-2, by enhancing the total area of land from
Ac.04 decimals to Ac.0.05 decimals. The Tahasildar is
also directed to obtain necessary approval from the Sub-
Collector by following OGLS (Amendment) Rules, 2010
and thereafter issue the corrected ROR to the petitioner,
by mentioning the area as Ac.0.05 decimals, as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of
three months from the date of communication of this
judgment.
28. In the result, the writ petition is allowed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
..................................
DR. B.R. SARANGI,
JUDGE
M.S. RAMAN, J. I agree.
..................................
M.S. RAMAN,
JUDGE
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 26th September, 2023, Ashok
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 29-Sep-2023 16:06:41
