LAXMI SAHU Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition involves a challenge to the order dtd. 17/6/2022 passed by the learned Revisional Authority i.e. the learned Revenue Divisional Commissioner (S.D.), Berhampur in exercise of power under the provisions of Sec. 15(b) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 hereinafter in short be reflected as "the Act, 1958" thereby rejecting the Sec. 15(b) application vide OSSAR Case No.18 of 2017.

(2.) Factual backdrop involved in this case is that Petitioner being aggrieved by the wrong preparation of the record of rights involving the disputed land by the Settlement Authority filed an appeal U/s.22(2) of the Act, 1958 being registered as Appeal Case No.11 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Sub-Collector, Kandhamal. It is alleged that the appellate authority without proper verification of the records and without examining the matters from its right prospective and further also on misconception of facts and law, dismissed the appeal by order dtd. 27/2/2016 vide Annexure-1. Being aggrieved by such order Petitioner preferred a Revision U/s.15(b) of the Act, 1958 on the file of the R.D.C (S.D.), Odisha, Berhampur being numbered as OSSAR Case No.18 of 2017. Such Revision appears to have been dismissed by the order dtd. 17/6/2020 as appearing at Annexure-2. Hence the present Writ Petition.

(3.) While challenging the revisional order on demerits involved therein a serious allegation has been brought in filing the present writ petition alleging that when hearing of the matter was concluded on 23/3/2019, the judgment in such revision has been pronounced on 17/6/2020 i.e. almost after one year and three months. It is in this premises Mr. Dash, learned counsel for Petitioner by way of primary objection on the maintainability of such judgment argued that for the hearing in the revision got concluded on 23.0322019, judgment in such matter ought to have been passed within a reasonable period and in the worse at least within a period of one month time. Taking this Court to the provisions at Order 20 Rule 1 of C.P.C. and reading through such provision Mr. Dash, learned counsel for Petitioner contended that for the clear provision therein after hearing of the case either the judgment shall be pronounced in an open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable and if there is pronouncement of judgment on some future day, the Court concerned shall have to fix a day for that purpose. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for Petitioner reading through the aforesaid provision again contended that there is also prescription, in the event there is no pronouncement of judgment within thirty days from the date of which hearing of the case was concluded and if delivery of judgment is not practicable on exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, the Court shall fix a future day for pronouncement of judgment. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for Petitioner further contended that in no case delivery of judgment shall exceed beyond sixty days from the date of which hearing of the case was concluded.