RAMGOPAL KHADIRATNA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition involves a challenge to the initiation of suo motu proceeding under Section 15(a) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (for short "the Act, 1958"). The core challenge involving the impugned order is for the statutory provision involving Section 15(a) of the Act,1958 though not prescribed any period of limitation but for the series of decisions of this Court and the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, maximum period in initiating a suo motu proceeding should not have exceeded 3 years. For the suo motu proceeding involved herein through Revision Case No.359 of 2004 vide Annexures-3 and 5 initiated after 20 years of preparation of record-of-right, learned counsel for the petitioner drawing the attention of this Court to the series of judgments discussed in the case of Chaitanya Das (since dead) through L.Rs., Smt.Aladmani Das and others v. Bibhuti Charan Das and others , 2017 1 OrissaLR 406 including that of a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Shivgonda Patil and Ors. V. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevala and Ors , 2009 AIR(SCW) 6305, contended that the suo motu proceeding initiated becomes bad and therefore, this Court should be interfered in the order at Annexure-3 as well as order at Annexue-5 and set aside the both. For the involvement of a preliminary objection and the question of maintainability of the suo motu revision involved herein, this Court is not required to go into the merit of the case unless the petitioners fail in their attempt for establishing that the Revision Case No.359 of 2004 is not maintainable on the premises of delay.

(2.) To the contrary, Sri Das, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.6 and 7 submitted that though there is no time stipulation in Section 15(a) of the Act, 1958 but, however, for a circular of the State Government giving liberty for initiation of suo motu proceeding even after expiry of time under the circumstance stated therein, claimed that the suo motu revision petition in spite of being initiated after 20 years is maintainable. Sri Das also further contended that the circular relied on by him since not contrary to the statutory provision and is intended to avoid the gray area involving the statutory provision. Sri Das, thus contended that the circular has application to the case at hand. Sri Das, learned counsel also referring to a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Harsh Dhingra v. State of Haryana and others with Sant Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and another , 2001 9 SCC 550 submitted that for the decision vide Annexure-7 therein, the suo motu revision is maintainable. Further taking this Court to another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and others,1967 AIR( SC) 1910, Sri Das again for the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph- 7 therein submitted that the suo motu initiation of proceeding after 20 years is maintainable. In the circumstances, Sri Das, learned counsel while justifying the maintainability of the revision even though filed after 20 years, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

(3.) Sri Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel supporting the stand of Sri Das also claimed that for the application of the judgments referred to therein and the circular to the case at hand claimed for dismissal of the writ petition.