Skip to content


M. Santama Vs. State of Orissa and anr. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Civil;Limitation

Court

Orissa High Court

Decided On

Case Number

C.R.P. No. 124 of 2003

Judge

Reported in

2003(I)OLR540

Acts

Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 115; Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5

Appellant

M. Santama

Respondent

State of Orissa and anr.

Disposition

Petition allowed

Excerpt:


.....appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a..........will be counted from that date. petitioner has thus prayi'd to condone the delay of 16 days in preferring this civil revision.. under the given facts and circumstances, delay of 16 days is condoned and the application under section 5 of the limitation act (misc. case no. 139 of 2003) is accordingly allowed.4. learned additional government advocate has no objection for disposal of the civil revision. it appears from the letter no. 438/sla of the special land acquisition officer, which is the xi-d-47/02 impugned order in this revision, that application filed by the petitioner for making a reference under section 18 of the land acquisition act was rejected by the said officer without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. therefore, the aforesaid act of the special land acquisition officer is in violation of the principle of natural justice. under such circumstance, while setting aside the impugned order the special land acquisition officer is directed to dispose of that application of the petitioner after affording an opportunity of hearing to him. in that respect, to save the proceeding from delay, it is directed that if the petitioner shall, appear before the.....

Judgment:


P.K. Tripathy, J.

1. None appears for the petitioner. Learned Addl.Govt. Advocate is present. With the permission of the Court, he went through the revision application and the impugned order.

2. Heard learned Addl. Govt. Advocate.

3. Petitioner has ventilated his grievance against an order passed and communicated by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Rehabilitation Officer (TISCO). Chatrapur vide No. 468 dated XI-D-47/02. 31.7.2002. The petitioner filed the Civil Revision within 90 days from the date of receipt of that letter under a bona fide impression that period of limitation will be counted from that date. Petitioner has thus prayi'd to condone the delay of 16 days in preferring this Civil Revision.. Under the given facts and circumstances, delay of 16 days is condoned and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (Misc. Case No. 139 of 2003) is accordingly allowed.

4. Learned Additional Government Advocate has no objection for disposal of the Civil Revision. It appears from the letter No. 438/SLA of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, which is the XI-D-47/02 impugned order in this revision, that application filed by the petitioner for making a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition act was rejected by the said officer without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, the aforesaid Act of the Special Land Acquisition Officer is in violation of the principle of natural justice. Under such circumstance, while setting aside the impugned order the Special Land Acquisition Officer is directed to dispose of that application of the petitioner after affording an opportunity of hearing to him. In that respect, to save the proceeding from delay, it is directed that if the petitioner shall, appear before the Land Acquisition Officer, on 30th April, 2003, then, learned Special Land Acquisition Officer, shall do well to fix a date of hearing and thereafter dispose of that application in accordance with law. The Special Land Acquisition Officer shall bear in mind that this Court has expressed no opinion on the merit of the application which the petitioner has filed for making a reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act and he is to consider the same in accordance with law.

5. In view of the above order, petitioner shall not be entitled to a fresh or further notice from the Special Land Acquisition Officer and in the event of default in appearance by the petitioner on 30th April, 2003. the Special Land Acquisition Officer shall consider merit of that application and pass appropriate order.

The Civil Revision is accordingly allowed.

A free copy of this order be handed over to learned Addl. Govt. Advocate to impart,appropriate instruction to the Land Acquisition Officer.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //