MATHURI MALIK Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Misra, learned counsel for opposite party No. 5 and learned Additional Government Advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2. In spite of notice other opposite parties have not entered appearance.

(2.) THIS writ application is directed against the revisional order passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation, Orissa, Cuttack, in Consolidation Revision Case No. 1886 of 1997. Though several contentions have been raised by the petitioner and refuted by the learned counsel for opposite party No. 5, it is not necessary to notice such contentions, as in my opinion, the matter is required to be re -heard by the Consolidation Commissioner, in view of the defective procedure adopted by the said Commissioner.

(3.) IT goes without saying that in a Court of law, or before a quasi -judicial authority, contentions of both the parties should be made in presence of each other so that each party can have opportunity of advancing or refuting any contention. Since principle of natural justice has been violated, it is necessary that the matter should be re -disposed of by the Commissioner by giving opportunity of hearing to both parties. Accordingly, the decision dated 27.11.1998 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner for disposal in accordance with law. Both parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner on 7.8.2000. The writ application is accordingly disposed of.