ORISSA HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON ALME BIDIKA AND OTHERS V/S SURU ANURADHA AND OTHERS

CUTTACK, India, March 26 -- Orissa High Court issued the following order on Feb. 23:

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. The Appellants in the present Writ Appeal are the legal heirs of Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 in WP(C) No.8612 of 2003. The Appellants assail the order dated 15th September, 2022 passed in the said WP(C) No.8612 of 2003 in this IntraCourt Appeal.

3. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the Respondent No.1 herein purchased the immovable property in question from the predecessors of the Appellants and Respondent Nos.5 to 8. She purchased the property obtaining permission from the Competent Authority under Odisha Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (By Scheduled Tribes) Regulations, 1956 (for brevity "Regulation 2 of 1956). The said permission granted in favour of Respondent No.1 was subsequently reviewed by the Competent Authority, namely the Officer-on-Special Duty (LR), Rayagada, (Respondent No.4 herein) and the permission so granted was cancelled. 3.1. Being aggrieved, Respondent No.1 preferred WP(C) No.8612 of 2003 impleading the predecessors of the Appellants and Respondent Nos.5 to 8 as Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3.

4. During pendency of the Writ Petition, the said Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 died. Steps for substitution were taken by the Respondent No.1 (Petitioner therein) in respect of deceased Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 therein. Vide order dated 4th July, 2022, the Writ Court also directed to take steps on the proposed legal heirs of Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3. But, without disposing of the petition for substitution, the Writ Petition was taken up for consideration and vide order dated 15th September, 2022, the Writ Petition was disposed of by virtue of the order impugned herein.

5. It is further submitted by Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the Appellants that the order dated 15th September, 2022 passed in the Writ Petition was a nullity, as it was passed against dead persons. The legal heirs of the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 in the Writ Petition were not substituted. As such, the impugned order, being a nullity is liable to be set aside and the Writ Petition should be heard afresh providing opportunity of hearing to the Appellants and Respondent Nos.5 to 8.

6. Mr. Rao. learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent No.1 submits that though petitions for substitution of Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 were filed by the Respondent No.1 (Petitioner therein), but before final order could be passed in those applications, the Writ Petition was disposed of.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=zDLovBVSUw02H8XukOjXfPm6AUEiFo9Yv4q9KGL%2BdOJ3tRJ9dGUhMtSWtb8ZPX3O&caseno=WA/1683/2022&cCode=1&cino=ODHC010858562022&state_code=11&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.