ORISSA MINERALS DEVELOPMENT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA
LAWS(ORI)-2000-7-47
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on July 26,2000

Orissa Minerals Development Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

P.K.MISRA, J. - (1.)ON the basis of oral prayer of the counsel for the petitioner, the Sub -Collector, Champua, is impleaded as opposite party No. 2 in all the writ applications. In all these matters similar facts as in OJC No. 4741 of 1999 are involved and similar questions are raised. Therefore, all the writ applications are taken up together and the present order shall govern all the cases.
(2.)IT appears that a suo motu case was initiated under Regulation 2 of 1956 on the allegation that the present petitioner has remained in unauthorised occupation of land belonging to a member of the Scheduled Tribe. The present petitioner has filed show cause raising several contentions under Annexure -2. The Sub -Collector, Champua, passed an order directing restoration of the disputed land. Thereafter the present petitioner filed appeal wherein the appellate forum after noticing the contentions of both the parties has rejected the appeal on the ground that the appeal was barred by limitation.
Normally, I would have remanded the matter to the appellate forum for fresh disposal. However, I find that the order passed by the original authority is laconic which does not disclose the reasons for not accepting the contentions of the present petitioner. The present petitioner had raised several contentions including the contention that an earlier proceeding relating to self -same land had been dropped. Without considering the above fact, the original authority has passed order of restoration of possession. The reason given in support of such order is as follows :

'16.8.1997. Perused the show -cause petition filed by the O.P. O.P. admits possession of the case land of the S. T. persons. It is a Suo Mont case Under Section 3A of Reg. 2 of 1956. The OMDC Ltd., Thakurani -OP is found unauthorised possession of the land schedule below of the recorded tenants who are S. T. Persons....'

A bare perusal of the aforesaid order makes it clear that such order cannot be sustained as the Sub -Collector has not given any reason in support of his decision. Since the original order cannot be sustained, it is unnecessary to remand the matter to the appellate forum. For the aforesaid reasons, the orders passed under Annexures -2 and 4 are quashed and the matter is remanded to the Sub -Collector for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The Sub -Collector shall give opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Sub -Collector on 4.9.2000. This order shall be communicated to opposite party No. 2.
The writ applications are accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.