PITAMBAR PANDA Vs. SURENDRANATH PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals have been filed against a common judgment and order dated 22nd July, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in O.J.C. No.3648 of 1994 by which the writ petition filed by the Respondent No.1 has been allowed setting aside the judgment of the revisional as well as the appellate authority under the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter called "the OLR Act").

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to both the appeals are that Respondent No.1 - Surendranath Panda had filed an O.L.R. Case No.2377 of 1975 under Section 36 -A of the OLR Act before the Court of Addl.Tahasildar, Puri. The said proceedings were concluded ex parte qua the landlord Sri Laxmidhar Panda, vide judgment and order dated 29.04.1986. It was held therein that Surendranath Panda (Respondent No.1) was a tenant (Bhag Chasi) under the landlord -Laxmidhar Panda (in W.A. No.159 of 2008) and as he had not entered appearance in spite of service of notice, vide order dated 20.12. 1985 he had been set ex parte. The said order of the Addl. Tahasildar, Puri was challenged in an Appeal (OLR Appeal No.33 of 1986) by Sri Pitambar Panda, who had been allowed to intervene as Respondent No.2 by the Addl.Tahasildar before the Court of the Officer on special duty (Land Reforms), Puri. However, the land -lord -Laxmidhar Panda did not prefer any appeal against that order of the Addl.Tahasildar. The appeal was allowed vide judgment and order dated 29.01.1989 and the case was remanded to be decided afresh by the Revenue Officer. The above order was challenged before the Revisional Authority -A.D.M. (Land Records) by filing OLR Revision Case No.9 of 1989, which was rejected vide judgment and order dated 12.03.1993. The said order of remand was challenged before the learned Single Judge by filing W.P.(C) No.3648 of 1994 by Surendranath Panda. The writ has been allowed and the orders of remand passed by the revisional as well as the appellate authority have been set aside, after recording the finding of fact that the information furnished by the Addl. Tahasildar to the queries of the said petitioner -Surendranath Panda it was apparent that no village committee had been formed and thus, there was no question of consultation by the Revenue Officer with the village committee and therefore, the findings recorded by the Courts below were bad. In both the appeals, it has been contended that this was not the information furnished to Respondent No.1 and the learned Single Judge in paragraph 7 of the judgment has referred to the same as under :

(3.) AT this juncture, learned counsel for the Respondent -1 raised a legal issue that Sri Pitamber Panda cannot be heard before the Tahasildar after remand because he was not a necessary party. A Constitution Bench judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Cumbum Roadways (P) Ltd., Madurai v. Somu Transport (P) Ltd., AIR 1966 SC 1366, wherein the Honble Apex Court observed as under : -