Court highlighted the necessity of natural justice in adjudicating disputes, affirming that parties must be given opportunities to present their case.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. BEHERA, J.

This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the order dated 06.09.2024 passed in OSS Case No.664 of 2022 by the Addl. Commissioner, Addl. Revision Court-IV, Odisha, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.2) under Section 15(b) of the O.S.S. Act, 1958 read with O.S.S. Rules, 1962.
2. Heard from the learned senior advocate for the petitioner and learned ASC for the State (O.P. Nos.1 to 4).
3. During the course of hearing, learned senior advocate for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to the impugned order dated 06.09.2024 passed in OSS Case No.664 of 2022 contending that, the said order has been passed in dismissing the OSS Case No.664 of 2022 filed by the petitioner “on the ground of non-availability of the certified copy of the orders passed in Waste Land Lease Case No.137 of 1968-69 in respect of the case land in spite of giving opportunity to the petitioner for the production of the same. For which, flow of title of the suit land is not established in favour of the petitioner due to non-availability of the certified copy of the orders passed in W.L. Case No.137 of 1968-69 in respect of the case land.” 

4. It appears from Annexure-8 issued by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.4) that, though W.L. Case No.137 of 1968-69 in respect of the case land is not readily available in his office, but on perusal of Khata No.140/72 of Mouza Bhola, it reveals that, an area Ac.1.000 pertaining to correction Plot No.552/774 in Mouza Bhola is granted on lease to one Radhu Naik, S/o Ishwar Naik of Bhola, Caste Gopal vide order passed in W.L. Case No.137 of 1968-69 by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.4) and the said lease has not been cancelled till date.

5. Learned senior advocate for the petitioner submitted that, the said letter dated 04.05.2005 (Annexure-8) of O.P. No.4 was also submitted before O.P. No.2, but, in spite of that, it has been reflected in the impugned order dated 06.09.2024 that, the petitioner failed to submit records of W.L. Case No.137 of 1968-69 in respect of the case land. 

Learned senior advocate for the petitioner further submitted that, Radhu Naik (in whose favour lease was issued as per W.L. Case No.137 of 1968-69) is the vendor of the petitioner in respect of the case land.
So, the learned senior advocate for the petitioner submitted that, the impugned order dated 06.09.2024 passed in OSS Case No.664 of 2022 by O.P. No.2 cannot be sustainable under law. Because, in spite of the letter of the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar vide Annexure-8 concerning the validity of the lease of the case land, the O.P. No.2 has passed the impugned order stating that, the records of W.L. Case No.137 of 1968-69 is not available to ascertain the validity of the lease of the case land.
6. Learned ASC for the State objected to the aforesaid contentions of the learned senior advocate for the petitioner contending that, when the impugned order has been passed only on the ground of non-availability of records of W.L. Case No.137 of 1968-69, for which, the matter is required to be remanded to O.P. No.2 for its fresh adjudication on the basis of the letter dated 04.05.2005 (Annexure-8) issued by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.4).
7. After hearing from the learned counsels of both the sides and on perusal of Annexure-8 issued by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.4) on dated 04.05.2005, it is felt proper to set aside the order dated 10.12.2013 (Annexure-1) passed in Objection Case No.5811/575 of 2012 by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.3) as well as the order dated 06.09.2024 passed in OSS Case No.664 of 2022 by the Addl. Commissioner, Addl. Revision Court-IV, Odisha, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.2) and to remit back the matter vide OSS Case No.664 of 2022 to the Addl. Commissioner, Addl. Revision Court-IV, Odisha, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.2) for deciding the same afresh.
8. Therefore, the writ petition filed