MALIKA DEY Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application is directed against the order of the revisional authority allowing the revision of present opposite parties 5 and 6 and rejecting the application under Section 36 -A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act filed by the predecessor -in -interest of the present petitioners.

(2.) THERE is no dispute that present opposite parties 7 to 11 are the original owners of the disputed property. Nilakantha Dey, the predecessor -in -interest of the present petitioners had filed application under Section 36 -A impleading present opposite parties 7 to 11, the original owners. During pendency of the said proceeding, the disputed property was sold to present opposite parties 5 and 6 by present opposite parties 10 and 11. It is not necessary to notice as to what happened at different stages. Ultimately, the Revenue Officer allowed the application under Section 36 -A and the order of the Revenue Officer was confirmed in appeal. The present opposite parties 5 and 6 filed revision and the revisional authority by order under Annexure -4 found that the enquiry before the Revenue Officer had not been conducted in accordance with law and there were several irregularities in such enquiry. However, in spite of such finding, the revisional authority, instead of remanding the matter to the Revenue Officer for fresh enquiry, allowed the revision and dismissed the application under Section 36 -A on merit. This order is being impugned by the present petitioners.

(3.) AS already noticed, the revisional authority has found that there were several irregularities committed by the Revenue Officer while allowing the application under Section 36 -A. Particularly, it was found that adequate opportunity of hearing had not been given to the parties and no opportunity of cross -examination had been given. In such view of the matter, instead of proceeding to decide the dispute on merit, the revisional authority should have remanded the matter to the Revenue Officer for fresh determination. All the witnesses who were not cross -examined by opposite parties 5 and 6 shall now be produced for cross -examination and thereafter the Revenue Officer shall give opportunity to petitioners as well as opposite parties 5 and 6 of adducing further evidence and the matter shall thereafter be re -determined without being influenced by any observations made by any of the authorities in earlier orders. The parties are directed to Original appear before the Revenue Officer on 23rd August, 2000, and the matter should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this order. The writ application is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.