2003 JTR(SC) 699
2003 10 AIC 390 ; 2003 4 AWC 3441 ; 2003 Supp1 JT 622 ; 2003 2 PLJ 454 ; 2003 6 Scale 268 ; 2003 10 SCC 678 ; 2003 2 SCR 63 ; 2003 5 Supreme 465
2003(5) Supreme 465
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Orissa High Court)
V.N. Khare, CJI., K.G. Balakrishnan & S.B. Sinha, JJ.
State of Orissa -Appellant
versus
Lochan Nayak (Dead) by Lrs. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1681-1686 of 2003
With
C.A. Nos. 1617, 1618-45, 1646-54 and 1655-80 of 2003
Decided on 31-7-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : J.K. Das, Janaranjan Das, G. Biswal, Ms. M. Gahlot, S. Mishra, Anukul Pradhan, Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Ms. K. Sarada Devi, Bhupender Yadav, Ms. Babita Yadav and Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Writ petition filed after inordinate unexplained delay should not be entertained by High Court.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226
(A) The Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 read with the Orissa Land Reforms (General) Rules, 1965, originally empowered the Court to cancel land allotments within one year and, through Rule 38-A(10)(bb), granted the Commissioner of Division suo motu power at any time to revoke such allotments on grounds of procedural irregularities. Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India were entertained by the High Court to challenge the revocation order, and the authorities were directed to conduct a de novo proceeding and reassess eligibility for lease in accordance with the law. This framework governs the present dispute over the legality of the cancellation and the procedural fairness of the administrative action.
(B) Key legal principles include the doctrine of laches, the limits of suo motu administrative revision, the requirement of timely judicial intervention, the duty of authorities to act in accordance with statutory procedure, and the consequences of unreasonable delay in invoking writ jurisdiction.
Facts of the case:
The respondents were allotted land under the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960. In 1980, the Commissioner of Division revoked the allotment under Rule 38-A(10)(bb) of the Orissa Land Reforms (General) Rules, 1965, on the ground of procedural irregularities. In 1986, the respondents filed writ petitions under Article 226 before the High Court, which allowed the petitions, remanded the matter for fresh determination, and directed a de novo proceeding. The Revenue Officer subsequently cancelled the allotment. In 1992, the respondents again filed writ petitions challenging the 1993 order, which the High Court allowed on the ground of inordinate delay in exercising the suo motu power. The State filed appeals, which this Court allowed after condoning the delay.
Findings of Court:
The High Court was found to have erred in entertaining the 1992 writ petitions because of the inordinate and unjustified delay in filing them, despite no sufficient cause being shown. The appeals are allowed on the ground that the impugned orders suffer from the vice of laches.
Issues:
Whether writ petitions filed after an inordinate delay without sufficient cause can be entertained by the High Court under Article 226, and whether the exercise of suo motu revision powers after such delay is permissible.
Ratio Decidendi:
The High Court should not have entertained the belated writ petitions as the respondents failed to show sufficient cause for the delay; consequently, the orders allowing the petitions and interfering with the administrative decision must be set aside.
Result:
The appeals are allowed, the impugned orders are set aside, and no order as to costs is made.
(A) The Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 read with the Orissa Land Reforms (General) Rules, 1965, originally empowered the Court to cancel land allotments within one year and, through Rule 38-A(10)(bb), granted the Commissioner of Division suo motu power at any time to revoke such allotments on grounds of procedural irregularities. Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India were entertained by the High Court to challenge the revocation order, and the authorities were directed to conduct a de novo proceeding and reassess eligibility for lease in accordance with the law. This framework governs the present dispute over the legality of the cancellation and the procedural fairness of the administrative action.
(B) Key legal principles include the doctrine of laches, the limits of suo motu administrative revision, the requirement of timely judicial intervention, the duty of authorities to act in accordance with statutory procedure, and the consequences of unreasonable delay in invoking writ jurisdiction.
Facts of the case:
The respondents were allotted land under the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960. In 1980, the Commissioner of Division revoked the allotment under Rule 38-A(10)(bb) of the Orissa Land Reforms (General) Rules, 1965, on the ground of procedural irregularities. In 1986, the respondents filed writ petitions under Article 226 before the High Court, which allowed the petitions, remanded the matter for fresh determination, and directed a de novo proceeding. The Revenue Officer subsequently cancelled the allotment. In 1992, the respondents again filed writ petitions challenging the 1993 order, which the High Court allowed on the ground of inordinate delay in exercising the suo motu power. The State filed appeals, which this Court allowed after condoning the delay.
Findings of Court:
The High Court was found to have erred in entertaining the 1992 writ petitions because of the inordinate and unjustified delay in filing them, despite no sufficient cause being shown. The appeals are allowed on the ground that the impugned orders suffer from the vice of laches.
Issues:
Whether writ petitions filed after an inordinate delay without sufficient cause can be entertained by the High Court under Article 226, and whether the exercise of suo motu revision powers after such delay is permissible.
Ratio Decidendi:
The High Court should not have entertained the belated writ petitions as the respondents failed to show sufficient cause for the delay; consequently, the orders allowing the petitions and interfering with the administrative decision must be set aside.
Result:
The appeals are allowed, the impugned orders are set aside, and no order as to costs is made.
ORDER
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 was then existed, the Court was empowered to cancel the order of allotment within one year, if the same is 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 respondent 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 4-2-1993, 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.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 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.
3. The appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
4. 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 alongwith the other eligible persons.
Appeal allowed.
****************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
State of Orissa v. Lochan Nayak (Dead) by Lrs., 2003(5) Supreme 465 : 2003 (Supp. 1) JT 622 : 2003(6) ACE 589 : 2003(9) SBR 147.
00026