Advocates:
['M/S B H MOHANTY', '', 'S C MOHANTY', 'D P MOHANTYR K NAYAK', 'T K MOHANTY', 'J K BASTIA']

Page 1 of 12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

O.J.C. Nos.3029, 6489 & 6490 of 1999

Basudev Pradhan

….

Petitioner(s)

Mr. D.P. Mohanty,

Advocate

-versus-

Pahali Pradhan & Ors.

….

Opposite Party(s)

Mr. U.K. Sahoo,

Additional Standing Counsel

CORAM:

JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH

Order No.

ORDER

02.11.2021

10.

1.

Heard Mr. D.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner

and Mr. U.K. Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the

State. In spite of appearance of a set of counsel on behalf of the

contesting Opposite Parties, nobody is present to argue the matter

during course of hearing.

2.

These are three writ petitions involving common set of

challenge arising out of huge number of objection cases decided vide

one common judgment leading to huge number of appeals again

decided in one common judgment by the Appellate Authority.

Undisputedly there is no revision under Section 36 of the O.C.H. &

P.F.L. Act involving the orders in the objection cases as well as

against appeal and revision is a straightway Revision U/s. 37 of the

O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act, 1972.

3.

It need be stated here that three writ petitions involved

herein, O.J.C. No.3029 of 1999 relates to revision under Section

37(I) of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act impugned herein at Annexure-3,

A.F.R

// 2 //

Page 2 of 12

but however involving Objection Case No.2139 of 1986 relates to

Appeal No.301 of 1987. Similarly, O.J.C. No.6489 of 1999 relates to

Objection Case No.2140 of 1986 relates to Appeal No.302 of 1987

in its challenge to revisional order at Annexure-3. Similarly, O.J.C.

No.6490 of 1999 relates to Objection Case No.2141 of 1986 relates

to Appeal No.303 of 1987 involving the impugned order at

Annexure-3. This Court here also takes note of the submission of the

learned State counsel on instruction from the State-Opposite Parties

that in the meantime consolidation operation in the particular

locality being over there is already final publication in the meantime

and undisputedly the revision U/s.37(1) of the Act did not involve

the final publication.

4.

For the commonness in the litigation, common order of the

revisional authority being assailed in all the three writ petitions on

common ground, on consent of parties appearing to contest the

matter i.e., the petitioner and the State Authorities, this Court takes

up common hearing of the matter and decides the writ petitions

involved in one common judgment. This Court here records the

ground of challenge to the impugned order as follows:

i) For the statutory remedy of revision available to

the parties to objection case as well as appeal case

under section 36 of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act, 1972,

once aggrieved part decides not to challenge the order

of the appellate authority in revision U/s.36 of the Act

amounts to acceptance of the order of the appellate

authority and such aggrieved party is debarred to avail

the remedy under Section 37(1) of the O.C.H. & P.F.L.

Act, 1972.

// 3 //

Page 3 of 12

ii) Second ground as raised by Mr. Mohnaty, learned

counsel for the petitioner appears to be, once the

Statute prescribes period of limitation in preferring

appeal as well as revision, party aggrieved has to prefer

within the period of limitation and there should not be

entertaining of belated Revision, unless otherwise party

aggrieved satisfy the revisional court that there is

reasonable cause in approaching the revisional

authority with delay.

5.

This Court proceeds to decide the question raised vis-à-vis

the impugned order at Annexure-3 as follows:

6.

This Court already recorded that the writ petitions confine to

Objection Case No.2139, 2140 and 2141 of 1986 consequently

Appeal Case Nos.301, 302 and 303 of 1987 respectively. This Court

here finds, undisputedly there is no revision under Section 36 of the

O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act,