ORISSA MINERALS DEVELOPMENT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the basis of oral prayer of the counsel for the petitioner, the Sub -Collector, Champua, is impleaded as opposite party No. 2 in all the writ applications. In all these matters similar facts as in OJC No. 4741 of 1999 are involved and similar questions are raised. Therefore, all the writ applications are taken up together and the present order shall govern all the cases.

(2.) IT appears that a suo motu case was initiated under Regulation 2 of 1956 on the allegation that the present petitioner has remained in unauthorised occupation of land belonging to a member of the Scheduled Tribe. The present petitioner has filed show cause raising several contentions under Annexure -2. The Sub -Collector, Champua, passed an order directing restoration of the disputed land. Thereafter the present petitioner filed appeal wherein the appellate forum after noticing the contentions of both the parties has rejected the appeal on the ground that the appeal was barred by limitation.