Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 887 (ORI)

Alekha Bisoi v. Revenue Officer, Khandapara

2016-10-03

BISWANATH RATH

body2016
JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 7.9.1995 vide Annexure-4 where the Revisional Authority in disposing the O.L.R. Revision No.1 of 1993 remitted the matter back to the Original Authority for re-consideration of the issue after entertaining the question of substitution. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the revision was preferred against the order passed in Appeal Case No.50 of 1982 by a person not contesting the matter all through and it is in this premise, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the revision at the instance of such person should not have been entertained. 3. Short fact involved in the case is that petitioners preferred O.L.R. Case No.8 of 1978 under Section 15 (1) (d) of the O.L.R. Act claiming right of Bhagchasa as against the owner of the land. The said O.L.R. Case was concluded allowing the petition in favour of the petitioners vide Annexure-1. Appeal preferred by some of the aggrieved persons also was dismissed confirming the order of the Original Authority. O.L.R. Revision was also filed and the said revision was concluded with an order of remand after coming to hold that three of the landlords have died during pendency of the original proceeding and both the original proceeding as well as the appeal proceeding were concluded without substituting the legal heirs of the dead parties. Sri Dash, learned State Counsel defending the revisional order contended that since the order passed by the Original Authority as well as the Appellate Authority were all passed in absence of dead persons, both the orders are null and void and in this scenario, the Revisional Authority did no wrong in setting aside both the orders of the courts below and remanding the matter for re-trial of the issue involved in the O.L.R. Case No.8 of 1978, under Section 15 (1) (d) of the O.L.R. Act. 4. Considering the rival contention of the parties, this Court finds that there is no denial to the fact that during pendency of the proceeding in the original stage itself some of the contesting opposite parties died and there was no substitution at that point of time. It is only while considering a substitution petition. 4. Considering the rival contention of the parties, this Court finds that there is no denial to the fact that during pendency of the proceeding in the original stage itself some of the contesting opposite parties died and there was no substitution at that point of time. It is only while considering a substitution petition. The Revisional Court come to know that the proceeding in the courts below have been decided in absence of substitution and that the orders vide Annexures-1and 2 have also been passed against the dead persons. 5. Under the circumstance, this Court finds the order passed by both the original Authority as well as the Appellate Authority becomes invalid and thus finds no illegality in the order of the Revisional Authority in setting aside both the orders passed by the Original Authority as well as the Appellate Authority and consequently remanding the matter back to the original court to decide the matter in entertaining into the question of substitution. 6. Under the circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the matter. Consequently, while dismissing the writ petition confirms the impugned order vide Annexure-1. Parties are directed to bear their respective costs.