The court reaffirmed that all parties must be given the opportunity to be heard in legal proceedings to uphold natural justice principles.

Judgment :

A.C.BEHERA, J.

This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing the final order dated 18.07.2014 (Annexure-4) passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation, Odisha, Bhubaneswar (O.P.1) in Revision Petition No.910 of 2011.

2. The petitioners of this writ petition were the O.P. Nos.5 to 15 in the Revision Petition No.910 of 2011 before the O.P.1. The O.P. Nos.2 to 4 in this writ petition were the petitioners in the said Revision Petition No.910 of 2011.

3. The O.P. Nos.2 to 4 of this writ petition being the petitioners filed Revision Petition No.910 of 2011 under Section 37 (1) of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act, 1972 before the O.P.1 praying for recording the case land i.e. Plot Nos.793 & 794 in total as Ac0.07 decimals in their names instead of Ac0.06 decimals. Because, during the consolidation operation, the total area of the said two plots had become Ac0.06 decimals instead of Ac0.07 decimals, although as per the Sabik R.o.R, the corresponding Sabik plots thereof i.e. sabik Plot No.793 was Ac0.04 decimals and Sabik Plot No.794 was Ac0.03 decimals in total Ac0.07decimals.

4. It appears from the impugned order dated 18.07.2014 passed by the O.P.1 vide Annexure-4 in Revision Petition No.910 of 2011 that, the O.Ps thereof (petitioners in this writ petition) were absent on call, for which, that revision petition was heard ex parte from the petitioners thereof and after hearing ex parte, the said revision was allowed and direction was given by the O.P.1 to the Tahasildar to conduct field enquiry in respect of the possession on the basis of Sabik records and to correct the R.o.R. and map accordingly.

5. On being aggrieved with the said order dated 18.07.2014 (Annexure-4) passed by the O.P.1, the O.P. Nos.5 to 15 of that revision petition challenged the said order dated 18.07.2014 (Annexure-4) passed by the O.P.1 by filing this writ petition being the petitioners against the petitioners in that Revision Petition No.910 of 2011 praying for quashing the same on the ground that, as per the final orders dated 12.08.1987 (Annexure-2 & 3) passed in Objection Case No.536/60 of 1987 by the C.O., on the consent of the predecessors of the petitioners thereof i.e. Hadu Moharana (who was the objector in Objection Case No.536/60 of 1987 before the Consolidation Officer) Ac0.01 decimal from Sabik Plot Nos.793 & 794 was recorded in favour of O.P.5 (petitioner No.1 in this writ petition i.e. Bhagabat Basudev) for Bhagabat Ghar and as such, Bhagabat Ghar is on that Ac.0.01 decimal of land, which is a portion of Sabik Plot Nos.793 & 794, but in the impugned order dated 18.07.2014 (Annexure-4), the O.P.1 has not taken the said fact into account.

6. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for O.P.1 and learned counsel for O.P. Nos.2 to 4.

7. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners (O.P. Nos.5 to 15 in the Revision Petition No.910 of 2011) that, no opportunity of hearing has been given to them by the O.P.1 in the Revision Petition No.910 of 2011 for passing the impugned order dated 18.07.2014 vide Annexure-4.

According to them, unless and until, the final order dated 12.08.1987 passed by the C.O. in Objection Case No.536/60 of 1987 is set aside, the impugned order dated 18.07.2014 (Annexure-4) cannot be sustainable under law.

To which, the learned counsel for the O.Ps vehemently objected contending in support of the impugned order vide Annexure-4 passed by the O.P.1 and argued that, in the judgment dated 18.07.2014 vide Annexure-4, the O.P.1 has taken the order dated 12.08.1987 passed in Objection Case No.536