The court reinforced that orders must respect natural justice principles, requiring that all parties are given an opportunity to be heard; failure results in legal invalidity.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the Petitioners against the Opposite Parties praying for quashing (setting aside) the final order dated 25.08.2014 (Annexure-2) passed in Revision Case No.1181 of 2014 by the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur (O.P. No.2) and the R.o.R. vide Annexure-3, which has been prepared on the basis of Annexure-2.

2. The Opposite Party No.1 in this writ petition i.e. Ganesh Ram Agarwal was the Petitioner in Revision Case No.1181 of 2014 and the Petitioner No.1 in this writ petition i.e. Satya Narayan Agarwal was the Opposite Party in that Revision Case No.1181 of 2014 under Section 37 (1) of the O.C.H. and P.F.L. Act, 1972 before the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur (O.P. No.2).

3. When, during the pendency of this writ petition, the Petitioner Satya Narayan Agarwal (who was the O.P. in the Revision Case No.1181 of 2014) expired, then in his place, his LRs i.e. 1(A) to 1(E) have been substituted.

4. The Petitioner Satya Narayan Agarwal filed this writ petition challenging the final order dated 25.08.2014 (Annexure-2) passed in Revision Case No.1181 of 2014 by the O.P. No.2 praying for quashing the same on the ground that, the said impugned order vide Annexure-2 has been passed by the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur (O.P. No.2) without giving any opportunity of being heard to him.

5. I have already heard in person from the side of the Petitioners, the learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 and the learned Standing Counsel for the O.P. Nos.2 and 3.

6. During the course of hearing, it was contended on behalf of the Petitioners that, the impugned order dated 25.08.2014 (Annexure-2) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur (O.P. No.2) itself is going to show about the non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. Because, there is no indication/reflection in anywhere in the said impugned order dated 25.08.2014 (Annexure-2) about giving any opportunity of hearing to the Opposite Party of that Revision Case No.1181 of 2014 i.e. Satya Narayan Agarwal, to which, the learned standing counsel for the O.P. Nos.2 and 3 did not dispute seriously, as, there is no reflection in the impugned order dated 25.08.2014 (Annexure-2) about giving any opportunity of being heard to the Opposite Party of that Revision Case No.1181 of 2014 i.e. Satya Narayan Agarwal.

Whereas, the learned counsel Mr. A.P. Bose for the O.P. No.1 vehemently objected to the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioners by filing the order-sheets dated 11.06.2014 and 07.07.2014 of Revision Case No.1181 of 2014, copy of the impugned order vide Annexure-2 and copy of the notices of the Revision Case No.1181 of 2014 contending that, when in spite of receiving the notice in Revision Case No.1181 of 2014, the O.P. thereof i.e. Satya Narayan Agarwal did not chose to participate in the hearing of the Revision Case No.1181 of 2014, for which, the Revision Case No.1181 of 2014 was heard only from the learned counsel for the Petitioner thereof, to which, it cannot be held that, the impugned order vide Annexure-2 has been passed by the O.P. No.2 without giving any opportunity of being heard to the O.P. of that Revision Case No.1181 of 2014. For which, according to him (according to the learned counsel for the O.P. No.1), the question of quashing the impugned order vide Annexure-2 does not arise.

Nowhere, there is any indication in the impugn