Ram Narayan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & letters patent, 1865, clause 10: [dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] letters patent appeal order of single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the.....order1. in this case the order passed by a learned single judge of this court in o.j.c. no. 12939 of 2001 is under challenge.2. the disputed plot was leased out to one kandabal muchu under the provisions of the orissa government land settlement act, 1962 and the rules framed thereunder.3. it appears that the lessee applied for permission from the concerned revenue officer for transfer of the land in favour of the writ petitioner. but, additional district magistrate started a suo motu proceeding for cancellation of the lease. it is submitted that the lessee was permitted to sell the lease hold land in favour of the petitioner. but the addl. district magistrate cancelled the lease because such transfer, according to him, was not bona fide.4. a suo motu revisional proceeding was initiated.....

Judgment:
ORDER

1. In this case the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in O.J.C. No. 12939 of 2001 is under challenge.

2. The disputed plot was leased out to one Kandabal Muchu under the provisions of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 and the rules framed thereunder.

3. It appears that the lessee applied for permission from the concerned Revenue Officer for transfer of the land in favour of the writ petitioner. But, Additional District Magistrate started a suo motu proceeding for cancellation of the lease. It is submitted that the lessee was permitted to sell the lease hold land in favour of the petitioner. But the Addl. District Magistrate cancelled the lease because such transfer, according to him, was not bona fide.

4. A suo motu revisional proceeding was initiated under Section 7-A(3) of the O.G.L.S. Act, 1962. The revisional authority cancelled the lease granted in favour of the petitioner's vendor. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition in O.J.C. No. 12939 of 2001 challenging the order of the revisional authority. But the learned Single Judge of this Court having found that a proceeding was initiated on 7.3.1998 and the lan.d was sold to the petitioner on 18.5.1998 i.e. after the initiation of the proceeding, therefore, the vendee was held to be not a necessary party in the Revisional proceeding. Thus, the Revisional authority was justified in not issuing notice to the writ petitioner.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the writ petitioner was not given a chance to ventilate his grievance before the revisional authority. Therefore, the revisional authority has not followed the principle of natural justice as a reason whereof, substantial injustice has been caused to him. It is true that the revisional authority has power under the statute to initiate a suo motu proceeding for cancellation of the lease, if in his opinion such transfer was not bona fide. But before such order could be passed, principle of natural justice demands that a chance should be given to a person, whose interest is likely to be affected. In this case, since such principle of natural justice has not been followed, we are therefore, inclined to vacate the order dated 9.10.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court as well as the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Khurda, Bhubaneswar in a suo motu proceeding in Revisional Case No. 13/1998 under Section 7-A(3) of O.G.L.S. Act, 1962. We, however, direct that the matter should be heard afresh by the revisional authority after hearing the petitioner and his vendor as well it shall pass a reasoned order within four months from the date of communication of this order.

With the above direction the A.H.O. is disposed of.