[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Chuladhara Tandi & Another vs Addl. Commissioner on 11 December, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.22990 of 2016
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
***
Chuladhara Tandi & Another
... Petitioners.
-VERSUS-
Addl. Commissioner, S & C, Sambalpur & Others
... Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioners : Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty. Standing Counsel.
(State-Opp. Parties)
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Date of Hearing : 11.12.2025 :: Date of Judgment :11.12.2025
J UDGMENT
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the two sons of
the ailing Opp. Party in Revision Case No.798 of 2015 as her
agents praying for quashing the final order dated 23.11.2015
passed in Revision Case No.798 of 2015 by the Addl.
Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur on
the ground that, the said Revision Case No.798 of 2015 has
been allowed on dated 23.11.2015 (Annexure-1) without
giving any opportunity of being heard to the Opp. Party in that
Revision Case No.798 of 2015.
2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned Standing Counsel for the State-Opp. Parties.
3. In order to have a clarity in this matter, the orders
passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement and
Consolidation, Sambalpur on dated 23.11.2015 as well as its
previous orders dated 08.04.2015, 25.05.2015, 05.10.2015 in
Revision Case No.798 of 2015 are depicted hereunder:
08.04.2015
"This Revision is filed under Section 37(1) of O.C.H & P.F.L.
Act.
Issue notice to the parties concern for hearing on
Admission Case to 25.05.2015."
Addl. Commissioner.
25.05.2015
"Due to scorching heat and Resolution made by District Bar
Association, the case is adjourned to 20.07.2015."
Addl. Commissioner.
20.07.2015
"None present.
Case to 05.10.2015"
Addl. Commissioner.
05.10.2015
"Petitioner present. Heard. Document verified. Case to
23.11.2015 for orders."
Addl. Commissioner.
23.11.2015
"Revision Case No.798 of 2015 is arised under Section 37(1)
of the OCH & PFL Act, 1972 claiming for recording of the
suit land as purchased vide a registered sale deed. Heard.
On consideration of the matter, I find the instant sale
as valid one complying there with all the legal necessities
needed for a valid sale and therefore, is operative in the eye
of law.
In the result, the revision is hereby allowed.
Send an extract of this order to concerned Addl. Sub-
Collector for correction of the records for the suit land and
issue the patta for the same in favour of the legal heir of the
deceased Praja Sahu after verification of all linked
documents original."
Addl. Commissioner.
4. The above impugned orders vide Annexure-1 passed by
the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation,
Sambalpur do not reveal about giving any opportunity of
hearing to the Opp. Party in disposing of the Revision Case
No.798 of 2015 through the impugned order dated 23.11.2015
(Annexure-1).
5. As such, the impugned order in Revision Case No.798 of
2015 has been passed on dated 23.11.2015 by the Opp. Party
No.1 violating the principles of natural justice.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been
clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:
I. In a case between High Court Bar Association, Allahabad
Vrs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2025 (1) Civ.L.J.
(SC) 40 (Para No.16) that, any order passed without
complying the principles of natural justice is to be treated as
illegal.
II. In a case between Shivaji vrs. Parwatibai and others reported
in 2025(2) Civil Law Judgment(S.C.)-528 that, when a case is
disposed of against any party without giving him/her an
opportunity of hearing, such disposal deserves to be deprecated
in view of 2023 SCC online S.C.-1210 between Suresh
Lataruji Ramteke vrs. Sau.Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar and
others, for which, matter is required to be remitted back for its
decision afresh.
6. Therefore, there is justification under law for making
interference with the impugned order passed on dated
23.11.2015 in Revision Case No.798 of 2015 by the Opp.
Party No.1 through this writ petition filed by the petitioners.
7. As such there is merit in the writ petition filed by the
petitioners. The same must succeed.
8. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is
allowed on contest.
The impugned order dated 23.11.2015 (Annexure-1)
passed in Revision Case No.798 of 2015 by the Opp. Party
No.1 is quashed.
The matter vide Revision Case No.798 of 2015 is remitted
back to the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement and
Consolidation, Sambalpur (Opp. Party No.1) to decide the
same afresh after giving opportunity of being heard to the
Opp. Party in Revision Case No.798 of 2015 within a period of
two months from the date of filing of the certified copy of this
Judgment by the petitioners before the Opp. Party No.1.
9. The petitioners are directed to file the certified copy of
this Judgment in Revision Case No.798 of 2015 for disposing
of that Revision Case No.798 of 2015 as per the observations
made in this Judgment.
10. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is
disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 11 .12. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak
Sr. Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India
