(1.) Heard learned counsel for parties. Though several contentions were raised by learned counsel for parties, I feel that interest of justice would be best served if the matter is re -heard by learned Executive Magistrate, Bargarh. This has become imperative because of the fact that proceeding which was initiated in the year 1979, came to be posted before several Executive Magistrates and some - times on transfer of the proceedings, it is not clear whether the Executive Magistrate passed impugned order had occasion to hear the parties at any point of time. This impression is gathered because after 20 -11 -1985 there does not appear to be any date when pirties were heard. It is desirable that when an authority takes up a matter for disposal, he should have opportunity of hearing parties himself. This is one of the salutory demands of the principles of natural justice that due and proper opportunity should be granted to the parties to place materials before effective adjudication, and that hearing and order should be by the same officer, (See AIR 1959 SC 308: Gullapalli Nagaswar Rao and Ors. v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Anr..) There is only exception in the case of institutional decision, where no particular officer or authority is not statutorily designated. (See AIR 1990 SC 1744 : Ossein and Gelatine . and Anr.).
(2.) WITHOUT expressing any opinion about merits of contentions raised, I remit the matter back to the learned Executive Magistrate, Bargarh who shall hear the parties and decide the matter afresh. To avoid unnecessary delay, parties are directed to appear before him on 17 -7 -1991 when he shall fix a date for hearing. He shall do well to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as feasible keeping in view that the matter is pending for more than a decade -. On 17 -7 -1991 parties if they are so advised shall move the learned Executive Magistrate for such arrangement as would be necessary for protection of property in question. On such application being made, learned Magistrate shall deal with the matter first and pass appro priate order. Till such time, interim order passed by this Court on 30 -3 - 1989 in Misc. Case No. 303 of 1989 shall continue. It shall always be open to the learned Magistrate to make necessary arrangement for protection of property sao motu or any application being made by the parties. Criminal Revision is accordingly disposed of. Send back the L.C.R immediately.