Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1681-1686 of 2003
PETITIONER:
STATE OF ORISSA
RESPONDENT:
LOCHAN NAYAK (DEAD) BY LRS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/07/2003
BENCH:
V.N.KHARE CJ & K.G. BALAKRISHNAN & S.B. SINHA
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2003 Supp(2) SCR 63
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
The respondents herein were allotted land under the provisions of the
Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’). Under
the provisions of law, which then existed, the Court was empowered to
cancel the order of allotment within one year, if the same was found to be
contrary to law. In the year 1980, by virtue to Rule 38-A (10)(bb) of the
Orissa Land Reforms (General) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ’the
Rules’), the Commissioner of Division was given the power to suo motu
cancel the land at any time. It appears that the Commissioner of Division
in the year 1984, in exercise of his power, revoked the allotment of land
made in favour of the respondents, having found that there were some
procedural irregularities in the matter of allotment. In the year 1986, the
respondents herein filed petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution
before the High Court of Orissa, challenging the order passed by the
Divisional Commissioner, revoking the settlement of land in their favour.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions and remanded the matter to the
Revenue Officer and concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate for deciding the
matter afresh. In the same year, the Revenue Officer cancelled the
allotment of land in favour of the respondents having found that the said
allotment was illegal. In the year 1992, the respondents herein filed
petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of
Orissa. The High Court allowed the writ petition by reason of the impugned
order dated 4.2.93, inter alia, on the ground that the power of suo motu
revision has been exercised after an inordinate delay. Aggrieved, the State
of Orissa has filed these appeals by way of special leave petitions.
Although there was a considerable delay in filing these appeals, this
Court, while granting leave, condoned the delay. That is how the matters
came up before us.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that as the writ
petitions filed by the respondents herein were extremely belated and
suffered from laches, the High Court ought not to have entertained the
petitions. We find substance in the argument. What we find here is that the
matters were decided in the year 1986, whereas the writ petitions were
filed in the year 1992. There was an inordinate delay for which no
sufficient cause was shown before the High Court and the High Court thus
ought not to have entertained those writ petitions. On this short ground,
the judgments under challenge deserve to be set aside. The appeals are
allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Before we part with the case, we may observe that the Revenue Officer/ Sub-
Divisional Magistrate/Collector directed initiation of de-novo proceeding
and allot the land in accordance with law. The authorities concerned shall
give effect to the said order and if the respondent is found to be eligible
for grant of lease, his case may also be considered in accordance with law
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
alongwith the other eligible persons.