KAMALA MOHAPATRA Vs. COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition involves the following prayer:

(2.) Principal ground of challenge to the impugned order appears to be once there is power provided to the Commissioner under the provision of Sec. 15(b) of the O.S.S. Act, 1958, it is only the Commissioner to discharge such power and he has no authority to remit the matter to the Tahasildar for involving Tahasildar's exercise in such dispute. Second limb of argument appears to be even assuming the Tahasildar has worked out on the direction of the Commissioner, the Tahasildar should have confined the proceeding considering it ought to be a request for correction of record-of-right and in no circumstance there involved a case for conversion of land. Further argument advanced by Mr.Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be Tahasildar while having remand exercise took the proceeding to be involving a request for conversion of land and therefore, there is inadvertent following of the previous judgment of this Court referred to therein. It is keeping the above legal position, Mr.Mohapatra, learned counsel sought for setting aside of the impugned order. Mr.Mohapatra, learned counsel also to satisfy his such submission brought to the notice of the order dtd. 27/7/2022 in W.P.(C) No.14368 of 2022 and the judgment dtd. 13/4/2023 involving W.P.(C). No.5042 of 2019 with W.P.(C).No.9426 of 2023 passed by this Court. Reading through the judgment and order referred to hereinabove, Mr.Mohapatra, learned counsel attempted to satisfy this Court that it was only for the Commissioner to discharge his exercise looking to the nature of the proceeding.

(3.) Mr.Ghose, learned Additional Government Advocate however referring to the proceeding filed in R.P. Case No.248 of 2007 and Misc. Case No,.29 of 2021 involving R.P. Case No.248 of 2007, reading through the different orders at page -56 and 57 of the brief in his first limb of argument submitted that there is no proper assistance to the Court for there has been non-appearance of the contesting parties in several occasions. Further in reference to the judgment and order referred to hereinabove, Mr. Ghose, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that for the judgment and order came to exist subsequently, there was no occasion on the part of the Commissioner either to come to know such legal position or to refer such orders. Further, similarly the Tahasildar had also no occasion to go through the judgment and order passed on this particular aspect by this Court in the meantime. Taking this Court to the order involving previous round of litigation, Mr.Ghose, learned Additional Government Advocate contends the Tahasildar remain bound to give a lawful outcome. Mr. Ghose however submitted that there cannot be any dispute of the decision in W.P.(C).No.8797 of 2004 and O.J.C.No.6721 of 1999 not applying to the case at hand.