SIBA PRASAD SAHU Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri P. K. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Shri L. Samantray, learned counsel for O.P. No.4 and learned Addl.Govt. Advocate for the O.P. -State.

(2.) THE petitioners by this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 12.8.2005 passed by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Cuttack, in R.P. Case No.1 of 2004, vide Annexure -7, remanding the matter to the Tahasildar, Baripada, with a direction to verify all the relevant documents, possession of the revision petitioner over the suit land and dispose of the case in accordance with law, within a period of three months, after hearing both the parties. The petitioner has also challenged the notice issued by the Tahasildar, Baripada, vide Annexure -8, pursuant to the order of the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (R.D.C.) in Annexure -7.

(3.) THE further grievance of the petitioners is that the R.D.C. should not have condoned the delaying entertaining the revision under Section 15(b) of the Act after a long lapse of time of 18 years and in doing so, he has committed an illegality in passing the impugned order. But in the interest of justice, I am not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the R.D.C. has committed any illegality in condoning the delay in filing the revision. In my considered opinion, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the R.D.C. condoning the delay in filing the revision, but the R.D.C. should have given a finality to the dispute between the parties by deciding the matter himself instead of remanding the same to the Tahasildar. In my considered opinion, and in view of the judgment cited above, it would be in the interest of parties if the R.D.C. re -hears the matter on merits and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order thereby giving a finality to the dispute between the parties.