The principles of natural justice are the bedrock of rule of law to which our democracy is wedded. It behoves all authorities --high or low -- to bear the same in mind while dealing with citizens or their rights and obligations.

PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) IN this writ application, the petitioner challenges the decisions of the revenue authorities under Chapter IV of the Orissa Land Reforms Act.

( 2 ) A suo motu proceeding under Section 43 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') was started by the Revenue Officer and notices were directed to issue to one Lambodar Moher in O. L. Rule Case No. 152 of 1975. Lambodar, however, had died in the year 1966. So, the petitioner, one of the sons of Lambodar. appeared before the Revenue Officer and filed his objection and affidavit. His brother, Pitambar. also filed an affidavit before the Revenue Officer, After holding an enquiry, the Revenue Officer, by his order dated 15-9-75 held that the petitioner (Premananda) and his brothers (Nityananda. Pitambar and Duryodhan), sisters (Shanti and Srimati) and mother (Tilottama) were each entitled to a separate ceiling area and all of them together were to retain 72 standard acres, the balance land was to vest in the Government as surplus land. On the basis of the said order, a draft statement was prepared and published on 30-9-75 under Section 43 of the Act showing the petitioner and 6 others as land-holders. Notice wag however, issued to the petitioner alone requiring him to file objections, if any, within the date specified. No notice was issued to the other 6 persons who were held as land-holders by order dated 15-9-75 and were shown as such in draft statement. In his objection the petitioner questioned the correctness of the land shown as surplus. He contended that certain lands which had been transferred long back were included and the classification was not correct. The case was adjourned from date to date until on 6-2-76 the Revenue Officer on the motion of the petitioner directed that verification of the land at the spot was necessary to ascertain the correct classification, and posted the matter for spot verification on 12-2-76. On that day. he went to the area along with the petitioner and the local Revenue Inspector. Some inhabitants of the area also gathered at the place. He verified the classification of certain lands, and also gathered from one Fakira Sand and other villagers that Lambodar Moher was dead, his sons Premananda and Nityananda were major, married and separated before the relevant date. i. e. , 26-9-70 and the third son Pitambar, however, married in the year 1975. Statement of no other person except Fakira Sand was, however, recorded. Relevant portion of the order dated 12-2-76 reads as follows :--

"it is ascertained from Fakira Sand and other villagers that Lambodar Moher is dead. His son Premananda Moher is major, married and separated, the 2nd son Nityananda is also married and separated prior to 26-9-70. 3rd son Pitambar married in the year 1975. Put up on 26-2-76 for hearing party informed:"

( 3 ) AT the hearing on 26-2-76, the petitioner objected to the procedure adopted by the Revenue Officer and contended that the order passed under Section 43 of the Act was not available to be reopened by the successor Revenue Officer in a proceeding for confirmation of draft statement The object of the notice under Section 43 (2) was to give notice to persons interested requiring them to file their objections to the statement contained in the draft statement and it was not open to the Revenue Officer to totally annihilate the draft statement under the garb of altering or amending all or any of the particulars specified in the draft statement. Final order was passed on 19-3-76 holding that the successors of Lambodar Moher constituted three families and not seven as had been held by order dated 15-9-75 and were entitled to retain 32 standard acres of land instead of 72. An appeal carried by the petitioner was unsuccessful. The appellate authority, however, remanded the matter with certain directions namely, for exclusion of lands transferred before 26-9-70 etc. The revision carried by the petitioner was also unsuccessful. So, the pe