The court emphasized the necessity of considering sufficient cause regarding delays in petition filings and distinguished between dismissal and disposal of cases, asserting review jurisdiction must be exercised strictly within its parameters.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH TANDON, CJ.

1. The instant applications for review are against the common order dated 20^th March, 2023 passed in W.P.(C) Nos.13399 of 2017, 13580 of 2017, 13582 of 2017 and 13583 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the aforementioned writ petitions were dismissed primarily on the ground of delay and laches having attributed to the conduct of the review petitioner.

2. The undisputed facts so unfold would indicate that the predecessor of the petitioner was settled with the nazrul land by executing a lease deed in his favour which expired by efflux of time. After the expiration of the period of the lease and the original lessee having expired in the meantime, an application for renewal thereof was taken out by the successor of the lessee.

2.1. Amidst the pendency thereof, a portion of the demised land was carved out and vested with the Government and ultimately the lease was granted to the surviving successor in respect of a remaining portion. Settlement of the land and the execution of the lease deed was challenged by opposite party Nos.4 and 5 (RVWPET No.146 of 2023) by approaching the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (Northern Division), Sambalpur (in short 'the RDC' ) with an additional prayer for settlement of the portion of the demised land in their favour on the strength of being in settled possession thereof. The RDC rejected the said application/appeal/revision, which was challenged by the opposite party Nos.4 to 7 (RVWPET No.148 of 2023) in W.P.(C) No.10239 of 2012, which was heard along with the other batch of writ petitions. The said writ petition was disposed of on 13^th September, 2012 in the following:

“Heard Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate.

2. The claim of the petitioners to a portion of the case land is by virtue of an unregistered document executed in favour of the petitioners’predecessor-Ram Shrestha Tiwari and by so-called original lessees, Sova Chakravorty and Jyotsnanath Sen whose original Nazul lease had been renewed. The renewal lease in favour of Sova Chakravorty was disbelieved by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner who cancelled such lease and as such the sub-lease in favour of the petitioners’ predecessor. At the same time, the petitioners’ application for settlement of the land for residential purpose has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional commissioner.

3. The relevant portion of the order dated 23.05.2012 of the Revenue Divisional commissioner, Northern Division, Sambalpur is quoted hereunder:

“23……As to the claims of the appellants, it is construed that they have said to have been in possession of the land long since. The appellant in Case No.5/2001 has produced an unregistered document, appears to have been signed by Sova Chakravarty, wherein she wanted to pass on an area of Ac.0.08, Ac.0.05 and Ac.0.05 in favour of Ramshresth Tiwari S/O late Kirtan Tiwari (husband of appellant in appeal No.5/01), Krushna Putel S/O late Raghunath Putel (Father of appellant in Appeal No.3/2001) and Muna Putel S/O late B. Putel (Father of appellant in Appeal No.4/2001) if the land would be renewed in her favour. This document was not agitated at the time of filing the appeal. The manner of the writing of the document clearly indicates that it has been manufactured afterwards, with a view to strengthen their stand. However, since Sova Chakraarty had not accrued her right, title over the case land by the time of writing the above mentioned document in the year 1982, there is no legal ground to accept it. As such the claim of the appellant in the appeal case Nos.3, 4 and 5/2001 become infructuous.”

With the aforesaid finding the Revenue Divisional Commis