[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Alme Bidika & Others vs Suru Anuradha & Others on 23 March, 2026
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.1683 of 2022
*****
Alme Bidika & others ...... Appellants
-Versus-
Suru Anuradha & others ...... Respondents
Advocates appeared:
For Appellants : Mr. Anam Charan Panda, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. S.S. Rao, Sr. Advocate
For Respondent Nos.2 to 4: Mr. Siba Narayan Biswal, ASC
For Respondent No.5 to 8 : Mr. Nihar Ranjan Mohanty, Advocate
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
& MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
----------------------------------------------------
Heard and disposed of on 23.03.2026
----------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
By the Bench;
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The Appellants in the present Writ Appeal are the legal
heirs of Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 in WP(C) No.8612 of
2003. The Appellants assail the order dated 15th September,
2022 passed in the said WP(C) No.8612 of 2003 in this Intra-
Court Appeal.
3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the Appellants submits
that the Respondent No.1 herein purchased the immovable
property in question from the predecessors of the Appellants
and Respondent Nos.5 to 8. She purchased the property
obtaining permission from the Competent Authority under
Odisha Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (By
Scheduled Tribes) Regulations, 1956 (for brevity "Regulation
2 of 1956). The said permission granted in favour of
Respondent No.1 was subsequently reviewed by the
Competent Authority, namely the Officer-on-Special Duty
(LR), Rayagada, (Respondent No.4 herein) and the
permission so granted was cancelled.
3.1. Being aggrieved, Respondent No.1 preferred WP(C)
No.8612 of 2003 impleading the predecessors of the
Appellants and Respondent Nos.5 to 8 as Opposite Party
Nos.1 to 3.
4. During pendency of the Writ Petition, the said
Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 died. Steps for substitution were
taken by the Respondent No.1 (Petitioner therein) in respect
of deceased Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 therein. Vide order
dated 4th July, 2022, the Writ Court also directed to take steps
on the proposed legal heirs of Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3. But,
without disposing of the petition for substitution, the Writ
Petition was taken up for consideration and vide order dated
15th September, 2022, the Writ Petition was disposed of by
virtue of the order impugned herein.
5. It is further submitted by Mr. Panda, learned Counsel
for the Appellants that the order dated 15th September, 2022
passed in the Writ Petition was a nullity, as it was passed
against dead persons. The legal heirs of the Opposite Party
Nos.1 to 3 in the Writ Petition were not substituted. As such,
the impugned order, being a nullity is liable to be set aside
and the Writ Petition should be heard afresh providing
opportunity of hearing to the Appellants and Respondent
Nos.5 to 8.
6. Mr. Rao. learned Senior Advocate appearing for
Respondent No.1 submits that though petitions for
substitution of Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 were filed by the
Respondent No.1 (Petitioner therein), but before final order
could be passed in those applications, the Writ Petition was
disposed of.
6.1. However, there is no illegality in the order dated 15th
September, 2022. He submits that the order cancelling the
permission for alienation of the land in question in favour of
the Respondent No.1 was in question before the Writ Court.
It is his submission that hearing of the Writ Petition afresh
would be an empty formality as the order impugned herein
warrants no interference on merit. In the process of fresh
hearing of the Writ Petition, the Respondent No.1 will suffer
as she had purchased the property with valid permission from
the Competent Authority under Regulation 2 of 1956. It is his
submission that initiation of the review proceeding itself was
without jurisdiction. Hence, hearing of the Writ Petition
afresh would yield no benefit to the Appellants. He,
therefore, prays for dismissal of the Writ Appeal.
7. Taking note of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties, this Court finds that during pendency
of the Writ Petition, the predecessors of the Appellants and
Respondent Nos.5 to 8, namely, Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3
therein died. It further appears that steps for substitution were
taken in respect of the said deceased Opposite Party Nos.1 to
3. But, before any final order could be passed in those
substitution petitions, the Writ Petition was disposed of
finally on 15th September, 2022. 7.1. Office note No.7 in
W.P.(C) No.8612 of 2003 dated 04.07.2022 indicates that
PLRs. of Opposite Party Nos.1(a), 2(a) and 3(a) appeared
through their learned Counsel and A.D. of substitution notice
returned after valid service from Opposite Party No.2(e) in
the Writ Petition. But, the same is not sufficient notice to all
the legal heirs of Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 in the Writ
Petition.
8. In view of the above, the order impugned herein was
evidently passed against dead persons. Hence, the same is a
nullity.
9. Testing the veracity of the order cancelling the
permission granted in favour of the Respondent No.1 in the
present Appeal may be prejudicial to either of the parties.
Further, in that process, either of the parties to the Writ
Appeal would lose a forum.
10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of
the considered opinion that the Writ Petition i.e. W.P.(C)
No.8612 of 2003 should be heard afresh providing
opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Accordingly,
order dated 15th September, 2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.8612
of 2003 is set aside and W.P.(C) No.8612 of 2003 is restored
to file.
11. Registry shall take steps to list the matter before the
assigned Bench for hearing of the Writ Petition on merit
providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned
including the legal heirs of Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 therein.
12. With Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the
facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(S.K. Mishra)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated 23rd March, 2026/Prasant
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:10:21
