The court held that failure to provide an opportunity to be heard violates natural justice, warranting quash of orders and remand of case for fresh hearing with inclusion of affected parties.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

Since all these 27 numbers of writ petitions have arisen out of one case vide OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 under Section 3-A of The Orissa Regulation 2 of 1956, then all the writ petitions are taken up together analogously for their final disposal through this common judgment.

2. The petitioners have challenged the impugned orders dated 25.10.2023 and 29.11.2023 respectively passed in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 by the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput stating in their respective writ petitions that, much prior to the passing of the above impugned orders in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 by the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput against them (petitioners), separate R.o.Rs in respect of their purchased portions from the case land were prepared in their names as per the orders passed in different mutation cases on the basis of their respective purchased deeds (sale deeds), but still then, the above impugned orders in the above OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 were passed by the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput against them (petitioners) without impleading them (petitioners) as parties in the said OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 and without giving any opportunity to them (petitioners) of hearing in the said case, though, they (petitioners) were entitled under law to get opportunity of hearing in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 by the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput before passing the impugned orders against them (petitioners) in respect of their recorded lands.

For which, they (petitioners) challenged the impugned orders passed in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 against them by filing these writ petitions praying for quashing the said impugned orders dated 25.10.2023 and 29.11.2023 respectively passed in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 by the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput.

3. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners in all the writ petitions one after another separately and learned counsel for Punei Hontal @ Girem (petitioner in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022) and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

4. During the course of hearing, the learned counsels for the petitioners contended that, the above impugned orders passed in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 (those are under challenge) cannot be sustainable under law and the same are liable to be quashed by interfering with the same through these writ petitions under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 filed by them (petitioners) on the ground that, the impugned orders in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 have been passed violating the principles of natural justice i.e. for non- providing of any opportunity of being heard to them (petitioners) in spite of the preparation of the R.o.Rs of the case land in their names as per the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities in separate mutation cases in their favour. The petitioners are the bona fide purchasers of the case land for value through separate registered sale deeds and they are the owners and in possession over their respective purchased land from Sabik Plot No.437. For which, the impugned orders should not have been passed by the C.A. & O.S.D. (LR), Koraput in OSATIP Case No.1 of 2022 without impleading them (petitioners) as parties and without giving them (petitioners) any opportunity of being heard.

To which, the learned counsel for Punei Hontal @ Girem and the learned Standing Counsel for the State objected contending that, the impugned orders have been passed as per law according to the provisions under Section 3(3) of The Orissa Regulation 2 of 1956. For which, the said impugned orders cannot be challenged through these writ petitions filed by the petitioners. Because, the sam