The introduction of new documents justifies a review of a prior order dismissing a writ petition, emphasizing the principles of natural justice.

ORDER

04.08.2025 Order No.

22. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Petitioners in this petition seek review of the order dated 18^th April, 2016, by which WP(C) No.21010 of 2014 was dismissed.

3. Elaborating the factual position, Ms. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are the legal heirs of late Gundugola Sadashiva Prasad Sharma who had filed WP(C) No.21010 of 2014 assailing the order dated 15^th February, 2014 passed by learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in Revision Case No.620 of 1987 by which lease granted in favour of the vender of the Petitioner, namely, Kashi Behera was cancelled.

4. It is her submission that Plot No.1286 under Khata No.420 situated in Mouza-Patharagadia measuring to an area of Ac. 1.00 decimal (for brevity ‘the case land’) was leased out in favour of Kashi Behera in WL Case No.1723 of 1974 by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar. Said Kashi Behera alienated a part of the case land in favour of the Petitioners. The Petitioners on the basis of the registered sale-deed is in peaceful possession over the same. When the matter stood this, a Suo Motu Revision Case No.620 of 1987 was initiated by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar under Section 7-A (3) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act , 1962 (for brevity ‘the Act’). Though notice in the said revision case was issued to the original lessee, namely, Kashi Behera, but he did not appear. Accordingly, the Additional District Magistrate vide his order dated 29^th August, 1987 cancelled the lease granted in favour of said Kashi Behera in WL Case No.1723 of 1974. Challenging the same, three purchasers approached this Court in WP(C) Nos.13952, 13953 and 13954 of 1998 on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. This Court vide common order dated 5^th November, 1998 set aside the order cancelling the lease and directed Additional District Magistrate to adjudicate the revision afresh giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. As there was delay in disposal of the revision petition, the Petitioners approached this Court in WP(C) No.8224 of 2010 for early disposal of the revision case. This Court disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 11^th July, 2013 and directed the Additional District Magistrate to dispose of revision case within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the said order. Accordingly, the revision petition was taken up and the order impugned in writ petition was passed.

5. It is submitted by Ms. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioners that the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the deceased-Petitioner could not produce any material in support of his contention that said Kashi Behera belonged to the local area, namely, Pathargadia. After disposal of the writ petition, the said Petitioner came across certain additional documents which disclose that the lessee Kashi Behera belonged to the local area, namely, Patharagadia in which the lease hold property (case land) situates. She also drew attention to the documents at Annexure-4 which suggest that the vendor of the said Petitioner, namely, Kashi Behera belonged to the local area, namely, Patharagadia. She, therefore, submits that review petition is maintainable on the ground that the parties seeking review could not produce relevant documents before the writ Court. She, therefore, prays for recalling the order dated 18^th April, 2016 passed in WP(C) No.21010 of 2014 and to hear the writ petition afresh on merit taking into consideration the additional documents in support of the case of the deceased-

Petitioner.

6. Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel though does not dispute the legal position but submits that the documents relied upon by the Petitioners do not conclusively prove that Kashi Behera belonged to Patharagadia. He, therefore, submits that the review petition should not be entertained.

7. Considering the rival contentions of th