Orissa High Court
Sarat Dash And Others vs Subash Chandra Dash And Others .... ... on 31 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.4533 of 2025
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
Sarat Dash and Others .... Petitioner
-versus-
Subash Chandra Dash and Others .... Opposite Parties
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Petitioner - Mr. Anjan Kumar Jena,
Advocate.
For Opposite Parties- Mr. J. R. Kar,
Advocate. (for O.P. Nos.1 & 2)
Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty,
Standing Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing :28.10.2025 :: Date of Judgment :31.10.2025
A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners praying for
quashing (setting aside) the order dated 18.12.2024 (Annexure-1) passed
in Revision Petition No.388 of 2022 under Section 15 (b) of O.S. & S.
Act, 1958 by the Commissioner, Land Records & Settlement, Odisha,
Cuttack on the ground of non-compliance of the principles of natural
justice stating in their writ petition that, Revision Petition No.388 of 2022
was heard by the Commissioner, Land Records & Settlement, Odisha,
Page 1 of 6
Cuttack in their absence and the impugned final order dated 18.12.2024
(Annexure-1) was passed without hearing from them (petitioners), though
they (petitioners) were the O.P. Nos.1 to 4 in the Revision Petition
No.388 of 2022 before the Commissioner, Land Records & Settlement,
Odisha, Cuttack.
2. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned counsel for O.P. Nos.1 & 2 and learned Standing Counsel for the
State (O.P. No.3).
3. During the course of hearing of this writ petition, the learned
counsel for the petitioners contended that, in the Revision Petition No.388
of 2022, O.P. Nos.1 & 2 of this writ petition were the petitioners and the
petitioners in this writ petition were the O.P. Nos.1 to 4 in the said
Revision Petition No.388 of 2022. The Tahasildar, Bari was the O.P.
No.5 in that said Revision Petition No.388 of 2022.
4. It is also the contentions of the learned counsels of both the sides
that, the Standing Counsel for the State had appeared in Revision Petition
No.388 of 2022 for O.P. No.5 i.e. for the Tahasildar, Bari.
5. When, during the course of hearing of this writ petition, learned
counsel for the petitioners contended that, the impugned order dated
18.12.2024
(Annexure-1) in Revision Petition No.388 of 2022 was passed
without giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioners (O.P. Nos.1
to 4 in Revision Petition No.388 of 2022), to which, learned counsel for
O.P. Nos.1 & 2 in this writ petition (petitioners in Revision Petition
No.388 of 2022) objected contending that, the impugned order dated
18.12.2024 (Annexure-1) was passed by the Commissioner, Land
Records & Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack in Revision Petition No.388 of
2022 after hearing from both the sides including the petitioners in this
writ petition (those were O.P. Nos.1 to 4 in Revision Petition No.388 of
2022).
6. It appears from Paragraph No.3 of the impugned order dated
18.12.2024 (Annexure-1) passed in Revision Petition No.388 of 2022 by
the Commissioner, Land Records & Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack that, the
said impugned order has been passed without giving opportunity of being
heard to the O.P. Nos.1 to 4 of that Revision (petitioners in this writ
petition) and without complying the principles of natural justice.
7. In order to have a clarity in this judgment, I thought it proper to
place it on record to the Paragraph No.3 of the impugned order dated
18.12.2024 (Annexure-1) passed in Revision Petition No.388 of 2022 and
the same is:-
"the counsel for the petitioners and Standing Counsel for Opp.
Party No.4 (State) were present and heard. The Counsel for the
Opposite Parties was present previously on 11.10.2023."
8. In fact, Standing Counsel was not the learned Counsel for O.P.
No.4, but the learned Standing Counsel was the Counsel for O.P. No.5 in
Revision Petition No.388 of 2022 i.e. for the Tahasildar, Bari. Because,
O.P. No.4 in the Revision Petition No.388 of 2022 is Anupama Dash
(petitioner No.4 in this writ petition).
9. The above Paragraph No.3 in the impugned order dated 18.12.2024
(Annexure-1) itself is going to show that, no opportunity of hearing was
given to O.P. Nos.1 to 4 in the said Revision Petition No.388 of 2022
(those are the petitioners in this writ petition).
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.
(iii) In a case between Sumitbai & Others Vrs. Paras Finance Co.
Mankanwar W/o Parasmal Chordia (D) and Ors. reported in AIR
2007 (SC) 3166 (Para No.8) that, the object of Civil Procedure Code is
really the rules of natural justice. Its purpose is to enable both parties to
get a hearing.
(iv) In a case between Shaikh Saffiquiddin Vrs. Gulei alias Gopal
Samal and nine others reported in 2009 (I) CLR 64 (at Para 17) that,
any judgment or order, which is passed behind the back of any party,
the said Judgment and Order would not be binding on that party, as the
same is in violation of the principles of natural justice.
10. When, it is well evident from Paragraph No.3 of the impugned
order dated 18.12.2024 (Annexure-1) passed in Revision Petition No.388
of 2022 by the Commissioner, Land Records & Settlement, Odisha,
Cuttack as stated above that, the same has been passed without giving
opportunity of being heard to the petitioners of this writ petition (those
were O.P. Nos.1 to 4 in that Revision Petition No.388 of 2022), then at
this juncture, the impugned order dated 18.12.2024 (Annexure-1) passed
in Revision Petition No.388 of 2022 by the Commissioner, Land Records
& Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack cannot be sustainable under law.
For which, there is justification under law for making interference
with the same through this writ petition filed by the petitioners.
Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioners.
The same must succeed in part.
11. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed in
part.
The impugned order dated 18.12.2024 (Annexure-1) passed in
Revision Petition No.388 of 2022 by the Commissioner, Land Records &
Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack is quashed (set aside).
The matter vide Revision Petition No.388 of 2022 is remitted back
(remanded back) to the Commissioner, Land Records & Settlement,
Odisha, Cuttack to decide the same afresh as per law after giving
opportunity of being heard to the parties thereof complying the principles
of natural justice as expeditiously as possible within a period of three
months from the date of appearance of the parties before the
Commissioner, Land Records & Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack in Revision
Petition No.388 of 2022.
The parties in this writ petition are directed to appear before the
Commissioner, Land Records & Settlement, Odisha, Cuttack in Revision
Petition No.388 of 2022 on 14.11.2025 for the purpose of receiving the
directions of the Commissioner, Land Records & Settlement, Odisha,
Cuttack as to further proceedings of the Revision Petition No.388 of
2022.
12. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of
finally.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Junior Stenographer
